Search

Purpose: With the current dynamics of scientific publishing increasingly driven by citation metrics, it is quite possible this will lead to the loss of some lower-ranked journals as they will be undervalued by authors, research institutions and research funders. This has been specifically predicted for natural science journals, but the efforts of editors of such journals to improve reputation have not been quantitatively assessed. This research aimed to fill this knowledge gap and assess the potential vulnerability of lower-ranked botany journals. Design/methodology/approach: Changes in article citation rates since 2009 for 21 lower-ranked general botany journals were examined by least squares linear regression and factors potentially predictive of higher citation potential by principal component analysis. The findings were then examined in a case study of the publishing that followed the celebrated discovery of a living-fossil plant (Wollemia nobilis) in the mid-1990s. Findings: Article citation rates steadily declined across most of these 21 journals over the period, and if submissions had been favoured (directly or indirectly) for citation potential, this appears to have been an ineffective, perhaps even a flawed, endeavour. Analysis of quantifiable article attributes across a subset of these journals revealed inconsistent relationships with no predictive value for citation potential. The case study clearly highlighted some processes contributing to declining citation rates and the value of botanical reporting well beyond that indicated by citation metrics. Research limitations/implications: It is not possible to know how important prediction of citation potential (directly or indirectly) is when journal editors accept papers for review or publication (such information is not made public, and this might not be a formalised process), so this study is only based what is considered (by the author) to be a reasonable assumption that all journals aim to improve their reputation and use citation metrics as one determinant of this. Social implications: Unless we give value to lower-ranked regional botany journals in other ways than citations, the current trends in citation rates could lead to the diminution, even loss, of their valuable contribution biodiversity conservation. Originality/value: Although concerns have been expressed about the long-term viability of natural history journals, this is the first research to examine this quantitatively using citation metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]