Eigenfactor Scores for Ecology and Evolution Journals
By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD ·
Quick Answer
- Eigenfactor scores measure a journal's influence by tracking citations weighted by the citing journal's own influence, giving ecology and evolution researchers a view beyond raw citation counts.
- Use Eigenfactor alongside Journal Impact Factor and field-specific metrics to compare journals in ecology and evolution, then verify each candidate journal against its own editorial policies.
- Eigenfactor scores are not available for every journal and do not measure article-level quality, so treat them as one input in a broader journal-selection process.
What Eigenfactor Scores Measure in Ecology and Evolution
Eigenfactor scores were developed to address a known limitation of simple citation counts. A raw citation count treats every citation equally, whether it comes from a high-influence journal or a marginal one. The Eigenfactor algorithm instead weights each citation by the influence of the citing journal, creating a recursive measure similar to how PageRank works for web pages. For ecology and evolution researchers, this matters because the field has a long tail of specialized journals, and a citation from a journal like Nature or Ecology carries different weight than one from a newly launched regional outlet.
The Eigenfactor score reflects the total influence of a journal across the scholarly network over a five-year window. It answers a practical question: when a paper appears in this journal, how much does it shape the broader conversation in the literature? This is distinct from the Journal Impact Factor, which measures the average number of citations received in a single year by articles published in the previous two years. The two metrics can diverge sharply for ecology and evolution journals, particularly for those that publish review articles or that serve as outlets for long-term datasets that accumulate citations slowly.
For a researcher deciding where to submit a manuscript, the Eigenfactor score provides information about the journal's structural position in the citation network. A journal with a high Eigenfactor score is one that other influential journals cite frequently. This can indicate that the journal's published work feeds into subsequent research at a high rate, which is a reasonable proxy for intellectual influence within the discipline.
The score is normalized so that the sum of all Eigenfactor scores across all journals in the database equals 100. This means the score is a percentage of total influence in the indexed literature. An ecology journal with an Eigenfactor score of 0.01 accounts for 0.01 percent of the total influence flowing through the entire indexed journal network. This normalization makes cross-field comparison possible, though it also means the score depends on the composition of the underlying database.
How Eigenfactor Differs from Journal Impact Factor
The Journal Impact Factor and the Eigenfactor score answer different questions about a journal. The Impact Factor asks how often recent articles in the journal were cited in a specific year. The Eigenfactor score asks how much influence the journal exerts across the citation network over a longer period. For ecology and evolution, this distinction has practical consequences.
Consider a journal that publishes a small number of highly cited papers each year. Its Impact Factor may be high because the numerator, total citations, is large relative to the denominator, number of citable items. But its Eigenfactor score may be modest because the total volume of influence it transmits is small. Conversely, a journal that publishes a large number of moderately cited papers may have a lower Impact Factor but a higher Eigenfactor score because it transmits more total influence through the network.
The five-year window used by Eigenfactor is better suited to ecology and evolution than the two-year window used by the Impact Factor. Ecological and evolutionary research often has a longer citation half-life. Long-term studies, taxonomic revisions, and methodological papers may accumulate citations steadily over many years. A two-year window can miss this pattern, while a five-year window captures more of the citation trajectory.
The Eigenfactor score also accounts for the prestige of the citing journal. A citation from Trends in Ecology and Evolution contributes more to a journal's Eigenfactor score than a citation from a lower-tier journal. This weighting aligns with how researchers actually assess influence. When an ecologist sees that a paper was cited in a high-profile review journal, they infer that the work has shaped thinking in the field. The Eigenfactor algorithm formalizes this intuition.
Article Influence is a related metric derived from the Eigenfactor score. It is calculated by dividing the Eigenfactor score by the fraction of all articles published by the journal. This produces a per-article influence measure that is comparable to a field-normalized citation rate. For ecology and evolution researchers comparing journals of different sizes, Article Influence can be more informative than the raw Eigenfactor score because it controls for journal volume.
Accessing Eigenfactor Scores for Ecology and Evolution Journals
Eigenfactor scores are freely available through the Eigenfactor project website, which is operated by the University of Washington. The site provides downloadable tables of Eigenfactor scores and Article Influence scores for journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports database. These tables are updated annually and include the journal category, which allows researchers to filter for ecology and evolution journals.
The Journal Citation Reports database itself is subscription-based and is typically accessible through university libraries. Within this database, researchers can view Eigenfactor scores alongside Impact Factors, immediacy indices, and cited half-life data. The interface allows sorting by category, so a researcher can generate a ranked list of journals in the Ecology category or the Evolutionary Biology category.
For researchers without institutional access to Journal Citation Reports, the public Eigenfactor tables provide the core data. These tables include the journal title, ISSN, category, Eigenfactor score, and Article Influence score. The data can be filtered in a spreadsheet program to isolate ecology and evolution journals.
The National Library of Medicine's Bookshelf provides access to authoritative biomedical and life-science reference works that discuss research methodology and scholarly communication. While the Bookshelf does not host Eigenfactor data directly, it serves as a gateway to methodological references that can help researchers understand citation metrics and their appropriate use in journal selection. Researchers who want to deepen their understanding of how bibliometric indicators work can consult these references to place Eigenfactor scores in a broader methodological context.
Interpreting Eigenfactor Scores in Ecology and Evolution
An Eigenfactor score of zero does not mean a journal has no influence. It means the journal's influence falls below the rounding threshold of the published tables. Small, specialized ecology journals that publish infrequently may have very low Eigenfactor scores even though their articles are read and cited by a focused community of specialists. The score is a network measure, and journals outside the main citation flow will naturally have low scores.
The rank order of journals within the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology categories is more informative than the raw score. A researcher can use the Eigenfactor tables to identify which journals in the field exert the most structural influence on the literature. The top-ranked journals in ecology and evolution by Eigenfactor score are typically the broad-scope journals that publish across many subdisciplines. These journals receive citations from a wide range of sources, which amplifies their Eigenfactor scores.
Specialized journals in ecology and evolution may have lower Eigenfactor scores but higher Article Influence scores. This pattern occurs when a journal publishes relatively few articles but those articles are cited at a high rate per article. For a researcher whose work targets a specific subfield, such as behavioral ecology or molecular phylogenetics, the Article Influence score may be a better indicator of how much individual articles in the journal matter.
The Eigenfactor score is sensitive to the size of the journal. A journal that publishes many articles will tend to have a higher Eigenfactor score than a journal that publishes few articles, all else being equal. This size dependence means that large society journals, such as those published by the Ecological Society of America or the Society for the Study of Evolution, will typically rank higher than smaller commercial journals even when the per-article influence is comparable.
Using Eigenfactor Scores in Journal Selection
Journal selection in ecology and evolution involves matching the manuscript to the journal's scope, audience, and editorial standards. Eigenfactor scores provide one piece of information in this decision, but they should not be the sole criterion. A researcher should first identify journals that publish work in the manuscript's specific subfield, then use bibliometric indicators to compare those journals, and finally verify the journal's policies and practices.
The first step is to list candidate journals based on the manuscript's topic. For an empirical study of population dynamics, the list might include general ecology journals, population ecology journals, and possibly conservation journals. For a phylogenetic analysis, the list might include molecular evolution journals, systematic biology journals, and general evolution journals. The researcher should read recent issues of each candidate journal to confirm that similar work has been published there.
The second step is to compare the candidate journals using Eigenfactor scores, Article Influence scores, and Impact Factors. The Eigenfactor tables allow direct comparison of journals within the same category. A researcher can sort the Ecology category by Eigenfactor score to see where each candidate journal ranks. This ranking provides a structural view of influence that complements the more familiar Impact Factor.
The third step is to verify the journal's editorial practices. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices outline expectations for authorship, peer review, data access, conflict-of-interest handling, and misconduct procedures. A journal that follows these practices is more likely to provide a fair and transparent review process. Researchers should check whether the journal is a member of COPE and whether its policies align with the Core Practices.
The fourth step is to consider the journal's data policies. The National Institutes of Health Data Management and Sharing Policy requires NIH-funded researchers to submit a data management and sharing plan with their applications. Journals in ecology and evolution increasingly require data availability statements and may require deposition of data in recognized repositories. A researcher should confirm that the journal's data requirements are compatible with their own data-sharing obligations before submitting.
Practical Workflow for Comparing Journals
The following workflow provides a structured approach to using Eigenfactor scores in journal selection for ecology and evolution manuscripts.
First, define the manuscript's scope and identify the relevant journal categories. Most ecology and evolution manuscripts fall into the Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, or Biodiversity Conservation categories in the Journal Citation Reports. Some manuscripts may fit multiple categories, and the researcher should check all relevant categories when comparing journals.
Second, generate a candidate list of journals. This list should include journals that have published similar work in the past three to five years. The researcher can use literature databases to find where related papers were published and add those journals to the candidate list.
Third, retrieve Eigenfactor data for the candidate journals. If the researcher has access to Journal Citation Reports, they can view the scores directly. Otherwise, they can download the public Eigenfactor tables and filter by journal title or ISSN.
Fourth, create a comparison table that includes the Eigenfactor score, Article Influence score, Impact Factor, and the journal's scope statement. This table allows side-by-side comparison of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of each journal.
Fifth, assess the fit between the manuscript and each journal. A high Eigenfactor score does not compensate for a poor topical fit. The researcher should read the journal's aims and scope and compare them with the manuscript's focus.
Sixth, verify the journal's policies on peer review, data availability, and publication ethics. The COPE Core Practices provide a benchmark for evaluating these policies. Journals that deviate from these practices should be treated with caution.
Seventh, make a submission decision based on the full picture. The Eigenfactor score informs the decision, but the final choice should reflect the manuscript's fit, the journal's audience, and the researcher's career goals.
flowchart TD
A[Define manuscript scope] --> B[Identify relevant journal categories]
B --> C[Generate candidate journal list]
C --> D[Retrieve Eigenfactor and Article Influence scores]
D --> E[Create comparison table with scope and policies]
E --> F[Assess topical fit for each journal]
F --> G[Verify editorial and data policies]
G --> H[Make submission decision]At a Glance
| Metric | What It Measures | Best Use in Ecology and Evolution | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eigenfactor Score | Total influence of a journal across the citation network over five years | Comparing structural influence of journals within a category | Size-dependent, favors large journals |
| Article Influence Score | Per-article influence, controlling for journal volume | Comparing journals of different sizes | Less familiar to many researchers |
| Journal Impact Factor | Average citations per article in a two-year window | Quick snapshot of recent citation activity | Short window misses long citation patterns |
| Immediacy Index | How quickly articles are cited in the year of publication | Identifying journals that reward rapid uptake | Less relevant for fields with slow citation accumulation |
Records and Measurements for Journal Assessment
A researcher should maintain a structured record of journal assessment data to support submission decisions. This record is useful also for the current manuscript but also for future submissions and for advising students and colleagues.
The record should include the journal title, ISSN, publisher, and the category or categories in which the journal is indexed. It should also include the Eigenfactor score, Article Influence score, and Impact Factor for the most recent year available. The date of data retrieval should be recorded because bibliometric indicators change annually.
The record should note the journal's scope statement and any stated preferences for article types. Some ecology and evolution journals explicitly state that they do not publish purely descriptive studies or that they prioritize papers with broad conceptual significance. These editorial preferences affect the likelihood of a favorable review.
The record should include the journal's policies on data availability, preprint posting, and open access. These policies affect the researcher's ability to comply with funder requirements and to share their work broadly. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy requires researchers to describe how they will manage and share data generated with NIH funding. A journal that requires data deposition in a specific repository may be more or less compatible with the researcher's data management plan.
The record should also note the journal's review timeline, acceptance rate, and any feedback from colleagues who have published in the journal. This qualitative information complements the quantitative bibliometric data and helps the researcher anticipate the review experience.
Common Failure Patterns in Journal Selection
Researchers in ecology and evolution commonly make several mistakes when using Eigenfactor scores to select journals.
The first failure is treating the Eigenfactor score as a measure of article quality. The score describes the journal's position in the citation network, not the quality of any individual article. A paper published in a high-Eigenfactor journal can still be poorly executed, and a paper in a low-Eigenfactor journal can be excellent. The score should inform the researcher's expectations about visibility and influence, not their assessment of their own work.
The second failure is comparing Eigenfactor scores across categories without accounting for field differences. The sum of all Eigenfactor scores is normalized to 100 across the entire database, so scores in different categories are not directly comparable. An ecology journal with a score of 0.005 may be highly influential within ecology even though a molecular biology journal with the same score is marginal in its field. The researcher should compare journals within the same category.
The third failure is ignoring the Article Influence score when comparing journals of different sizes. A large journal with a moderate per-article citation rate can have a higher Eigenfactor score than a small journal with a high per-article citation rate. For a researcher deciding where to submit a single manuscript, the Article Influence score is often more relevant because it estimates the influence of a typical article in the journal.
The fourth failure is selecting a journal based on bibliometric indicators without verifying its editorial practices. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the expectations for ethical scholarly publishing, including transparent peer review, clear authorship criteria, and proper handling of misconduct allegations. A journal with a high Eigenfactor score but poor ethical practices can create problems for the researcher, including delayed publication, disputed authorship, or retraction.
The fifth failure is overlooking data-sharing requirements. Ecology and evolution journals increasingly require data availability statements, and many require deposition in recognized repositories. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy applies to research funded by NIH, and researchers should ensure that their chosen journal's data policies are compatible with their funder's requirements. A mismatch between journal policy and funder policy can delay publication or require last-minute changes to the manuscript.
Limitations of Eigenfactor Scores
Eigenfactor scores have several limitations that researchers should understand before using them in journal selection.
The scores are computed from the Journal Citation Reports database, which indexes a subset of the world's scholarly journals. Journals that are not indexed in this database have no Eigenfactor score. Many regional ecology journals, journals published in languages other than English, and journals from emerging scholarly communities may be absent from the database. The absence of a score does not indicate that the journal lacks influence.
The scores are sensitive to the citation practices of the indexed journals. Fields with high citation density, such as molecular biology, will have higher Eigenfactor scores than fields with lower citation density, such as taxonomy. This field dependence means that the score is not a universal measure of quality but a measure of position within a specific citation network.
The five-year window used by Eigenfactor may not capture the citation patterns of all ecology and evolution research. Some subfields, such as conservation biology, may have longer citation trajectories than others. A paper that becomes influential after more than five years will not contribute to the journal's Eigenfactor score during the period when the score is computed.
The Eigenfactor score does not distinguish between citations that reflect genuine intellectual influence and citations that are perfunctory or critical. A journal can accumulate citations from papers that mention its articles in passing or that cite them as examples of flawed methodology. The score is a structural measure, not a qualitative assessment of how the journal's work is used.
Welfare and Safety Context in Journal Selection
The welfare and safety context for ecology and evolution researchers relates to the ethical conduct of research and the responsible handling of data and specimens. These considerations affect journal selection because journals have different policies on ethical oversight, data availability, and specimen deposition.
Research involving animals requires ethical review and approval before the work begins. Journals in ecology and evolution typically require authors to confirm that their research complied with relevant animal welfare regulations and institutional guidelines. A researcher should verify that the chosen journal's policies on animal research ethics are consistent with the standards applied by their institution and by the relevant regulatory bodies.
Field research in ecology and evolution may involve collection of specimens, which requires permits from relevant authorities. Journals may require authors to document that they obtained the necessary permits and that their collection activities complied with applicable laws. The researcher should confirm that the journal's requirements for permit documentation are feasible given the nature of their research.
Data management is also a welfare and safety consideration. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy requires researchers to plan for the management and sharing of scientific data generated with NIH funding. This planning includes decisions about where data will be deposited, how it will be described, and how access will be controlled. A journal that requires data deposition in a repository that is incompatible with the researcher's data management plan can create compliance problems.
Professional Escalation Criteria
A researcher should seek additional guidance when certain conditions arise during journal selection.
If the researcher cannot determine whether a journal follows ethical publishing practices, they should consult the Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices and compare the journal's policies against those standards. If the journal's policies are unclear or if the journal is not a COPE member, the researcher should seek advice from a senior colleague or from their institution's research office.
If the researcher is uncertain about how to comply with funder data-sharing requirements, they should consult their institution's research administration office or the NIH Grants and Funding resources. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy provides the official expectations for NIH-funded research, and the researcher should ensure that their journal choice is compatible with these expectations.
If the researcher is considering a journal that is not indexed in the Journal Citation Reports and therefore has no Eigenfactor score, they should seek additional information about the journal's influence. This information might include the journal's inclusion in other databases, its citation patterns in Google Scholar, or the reputation of its editorial board. The absence of an Eigenfactor score is not disqualifying, but it warrants additional investigation.
If the researcher discovers that a journal has been involved in publication ethics concerns, such as retractions, duplicate publication, or peer review manipulation, they should escalate the matter to their institution's research integrity office. The COPE Core Practices describe the expectations for handling misconduct, and the researcher should not submit to a journal with a documented history of ethical violations.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I find the Eigenfactor score for a specific ecology journal?
Access the Journal Citation Reports through your institution's library subscription, search for the journal by title or ISSN, and view the journal profile page. The Eigenfactor score appears alongside other bibliometric indicators. If you lack institutional access, download the public Eigenfactor tables from the Eigenfactor project website and filter by journal title or ISSN.
What is the difference between Eigenfactor and Article Influence scores?
The Eigenfactor score measures the total influence of a journal across the citation network, which makes it sensitive to journal size. The Article Influence score divides the Eigenfactor score by the journal's article fraction, producing a per-article measure. For comparing journals of different sizes, the Article Influence score is often more informative.
Can I compare Eigenfactor scores across different scientific fields?
Eigenfactor scores are normalized so that the sum across all indexed journals equals 100, which means scores are comparable across fields in a technical sense. However, fields have different citation densities and practices, so a score that is high in ecology may be low in molecular biology. Compare journals within the same category for meaningful assessment.
Why does my target journal have a very low or zero Eigenfactor score?
A zero score means the journal's influence falls below the rounding threshold of the published tables. Small, specialized journals that publish infrequently may have very low scores even when their articles are cited by a focused community. The absence of a meaningful score does not indicate that the journal lacks influence in its niche.
How should I use Eigenfactor scores alongside other journal metrics?
Use Eigenfactor scores to understand the journal's structural position in the citation network, Article Influence scores to compare per-article influence, and the Impact Factor for a quick snapshot of recent citation activity. Combine these quantitative indicators with a qualitative assessment of the journal's scope, audience, and editorial policies.
Do Eigenfactor scores reflect the quality of individual articles?
No. The Eigenfactor score describes the journal's position in the citation network, not the quality of any specific article. A paper in a high-Eigenfactor journal can be weak, and a paper in a low-Eigenfactor journal can be excellent. Use the score to set expectations about visibility, not to judge your own work.
What should I check beyond Eigenfactor scores before submitting my manuscript?
Verify the journal's editorial practices against the Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices, confirm that the journal's data policies are compatible with your funder's requirements, and read recent issues to confirm that similar work has been published there. These checks are as important as the bibliometric indicators.
How often are Eigenfactor scores updated?
Eigenfactor scores are updated annually based on the Journal Citation Reports data. The scores reflect a five-year citation window, so changes from year to year are gradual. When comparing journals, use data from the same year to ensure consistency.
Using the Evidence
| Source | Best use in this topic | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Research Methods Resources | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
| EQUATOR Network | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
| Core Practices | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
Related Articles
- Statistical Z-Table: How to Use It and Find Probabilities
- How to Use ClinicalTrials.gov to Find Trials and Career Opportunities
- Replication Studies in Ecology and Evolution: A Guide to Design and Interpretation
- Reference Managers for Researchers: Choosing a Workflow That Survives Collaboration
- Evolution Of Genome
References and Further Reading
- Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
- EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
- Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
- NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
- ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
- Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
- NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
- PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.