SETAC Journals Continue to Demonstrate Strong Impact
Sabine E. Apitz and Erin Nelson, SETAC Journals
The release of the 2025 journal impact factors highlights the continued influence of SETAC’s two journals, with Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (ET&C) at 3.6 and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) at 3.3. While impact factors provide a useful measure of journal visibility, they are not without limitations.
IEAM Impact Factor Returns to Previous Trend Following Clarivate Indexing Error in the Prior Year
When the 2024 journal impact factors were released in June 2025, the IEAM editorial team opened the results expecting another steady year. Instead, they found an astonishing number: 8.4. The journal’s impact factor had nearly tripled overnight. The jump from the previous year’s 3.0 was far larger than expected for a journal of IEAM’s size and scope. Working with Oxford University Press, the editors looked for an explanation but found none. In the absence of any indication that the metric was incorrect, they accepted Clarivate’s calculation in good faith.
A year later, when the annual announcement arrived, the editorial team opened the newly released impact factors with one question already in mind: Would IEAM’s extraordinary jump to 8.4 prove to be the beginning of a new trend, or something else entirely? There was no shock this time. Instead, there was recognition. The number, 3.3, fit the journal they knew. Again, they reached out to Oxford University Press. This time, the discussions revealed that the 2024 impact factor had been inadvertently inflated because of an indexing error. The error traced back to citations of a book reviewed in IEAM that had been mistakenly attributed to the journal and included in the impact factor calculation. Because the book was not journal content and did not have a journal DOI, the error went undetected during earlier reviews.
While the corrected 2025 impact factor is substantially lower than the published 2024 value, it represents a return to IEAM’s underlying citation trajectory, with 3.3 indicating steady growth from the 3.0 impact factor two years earlier.
Beyond the Numbers
This experience serves as an important reminder: While impact factors provide a useful snapshot, they don’t tell the whole story and should always be interpreted with caution. This indexing error is just another illustration of how opaque the calculation process can be and why long-term trends provide a more meaningful picture than a single annual metric. This experience also reinforces why SETAC and its journals are signatories of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recognizes the limitations of relying on journal impact factors as the primary measure of research quality or impact.
More importantly, neither journal’s success can be measured by a single annual metric. Their continued influence is built on the quality of the science published by SETAC authors and the dedication of the editors, reviewers and editorial board members who ensure that work reaches the scientific community.
That is why the editorial team is deeply grateful to the SETAC community for its continued support and contributions.
Members with questions about the impact factor or indexing are encouraged to reach out for further discussion.
Author contact: [email protected]