{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025225225225225224, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0009009009009009009, 'mean_word_length': 4.555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The impact of the impact factor

As a new journal yet unbranded by an impact factor (IF), we can address this important element of science without suffering either the anguish of those journals that languor in the lower divisions or the insouciance of those with double digit IFs. This number, as abstract as it is, has become the pervasive arbiter of scientific careers for those who apply for positions and fellowships. Just as The New York Times theatre critic has become the one to determine which plays on Broadway flourish and which plays will shut down, IFs can boost or destroy scientific careers. All of us who have had to turn down an applicant know the dreaded words of execution: ‘...the publications are in low impact journals.’ Indeed, I suspect that some selection committees, deprived of strong scientific input, simply add the IFs of a candidate's publications and are comfortable with this non‐subjective manner of ranking. This is quite at odds with frequent studies showing that a journal's IF is dependent on the research field, i.e. an IF of 3 in one area is the Everest among hillocks, …