Biosemiotics editorial board meeting attended

Today I have attended the annual editorial board of Biosemiotics, which took place via Zoom. The editorial board meeting was attended by some 20 people, under the leadership of the new Editor-in-Chief, Yogi Hendlin and co-Editor in Chief Alexei Sharov.

In 2020, my last year as lead Editor-in-Chief, the Impact Factor went down from 2019, but the number of downloads increased to record numbers (ca. 59.000, vs. 44.000 in 2019). In 2021, both the number of articles published and the number of article downloads have increased to new record-levels, while processing times have decreased significantly (probably partly due to the new editorial setup with several Associate editors).

2020 Impact Factor for Biosemiotics

The 2020 Impact factor for Biosemiotics, for which I was lead Editor-in-Chief 2018-2020, was 0.711. This is lower than in the previous years. The 5-year Impact factor is 1.224. 

Biosemiotics had 59.184 downloads in 2020. This is increasing.

Impaft factors for Springers journals in Evolutionary & Developmental Biology

The 2019 Impact factor of Biosemiotics (1.021) is mentioned on Springer´s presentation of the latest impact factors for its journals within Evolutionary & Developmental Biology. Among 12 journals, Biosemiotics ranks as #10. Journal of Mammalian Evolution is #1 with an Impact factor of 2.500.

The 5-year Impact Factor of biosemiotics is 1.331 (2019).

IF for Biosemiotics in 2019

The impact factor for Biosemiotics in 2019 has just been announced: 1,021 (-0.149 since 2018; ranking is #18/63 for History and Philosophy of Science Journals according to Clarivate Web of Science.

Impact Factor for Springer Nature journals in evolutionary and developmental biology

Here is an overview of the 2018 Impact Factor for Springer Nature´s journals in evolutionary and developmental biology - among them Biosemiotics (#9/12 with an IF of 1.170).

2018 Impact Factor for Biosemiotics

The 2018 Impact Factor for Biosemiotics, for which I am Main Editor-in-Chief, is 1.170 (down from 1.527 in 2017. The 5-year Impact Factor looks better, at 1.201 (vs. 0.915 in 2017), a new record.

Wikipedia page on Biosemiotics

There is a Wikipedia page - a stub - on the journal Biosemiotics, for which I have been an Editor-in-Chief since 2013. The info on Impact Factor is outdated.

Biosemiotics #8 among Springer journals in Evolutionary & Developmental Biology

Here is an overview of the new, 2017 Impact factors for Springer journals within Evolutionary & Developmental Biology. With its record Impact Factor of 1.527, Biosemiotics is now ranked as #8 among Springer´s journals in this category.

Biosemiotics #8 in category "History & Philosophy of Science"

According to citation data from Thompson Web of Science, in 2016 Biosemiotics was the ranked as no. 8 in terms of Impact Factor (0,964) in the category "History & Philosophy of Science".

Record-high Impact Factor for Biosemiotics

The Impact Factor for Biosemiotics for 2016 has been released - a record high 0.964.

Biosemiotics annual report

We have just received the Biosemiotics 2015 Publisher´s report from Springer. While the Impact Factor is down from 2014 (see below), it is higher than the initial IF, for 2012. The 5-year Impact Factor is 0.52. Furthermore, the number of downloads was record-high in 2015, more than 17.000 downloads, which is more than twice as much as the number of downloads in 2012.

From a personal point of view, I note that the editorials from 8(1) and 8(3), which Alexei Sharov co-authored with Timo Maran and me, were the 3rd ("Toward synthesis of biology and semiotics") and 10th ("Organisms reshape sign relations") most downloaded article respectively in 2015, with 403 and 193 downloads. I also contributed to Norway being no. 8 on the list of countries with the most impact, and to University of Stavanger being no. 8 on the list of the organizations with the most impact.

See also:

Biosemiotics Impact Factor for 2015

Biosemiotics Impact Factor for 2015

Thomson Reuters has recently announced 2015 Impact Factors. The Impact Factor for Biosemiotics, for which I am one of three Editors-in-Chief, was 0.391, a decline from the two previous years and especially from 2014 (0.593).

Biosemiotics 12th highest ranked Springer journal in Evolutionary and developmental biology

As an overview published online shows, Biosemiotics is Springer´s 12th highest ranked journal (out of 14) in the category Evolutionary and developmental biology journals, as measured by Thomson Reuters Impact Factor for 2014.

2014 Impact Factor of Biosemiotics record-high

The Impact Factor (IF) for the journal Biosemiotics (published by Springer) for 2014, calculated by Thomson Reuters, is 0.593. This is an increase from 2013, when the IF was 0.488, and the journal´s highest IF yet.

The Impact Factor is a measure of how many times the articles published in a journal are being cited. The 2014 Impact Factor says something about how many times articles published in Biosemiotics in 2012 and 2013 were cited on average in 2014, in indexed publications.

Biosemiotics' Impact Factor for 2013 the highest yet

Today I was informed about Biosemiotics' Impact Factor for 2013, calculated by Thomson Reuters (Journal Citation Reports): 0,488. This is up from 2012's 0,364 and above 2011's 0,444, which was the first year the journal had an Impact Factor. Last year's Impact Factor is thus the highest yet for the journal.

An Impact Factor of 0,488 in 2013 means that citable publications in Biosemiotics in 2011 and 2012 were on average cited 0,488 times each in 2013 in publications in other listed journals.