Impact of abstracts and short reports
=====================================

* Eugene Garfield

In the recent editorial on *CMAJ*'s impact factor,1 what is the basis for the statement that "short reports ... are less likely to be cited"? Brevity by itself is not the problem. Consider Watson and Crick's 1953 paper!2 However, the increased number of short reports may lead to a lower average impact. I would think that these short reports would eventually be supplemented by more definitive or complete papers so that long-term impact might be affected, but in the short run you might be surprised at the outcome.

## References

1.  1. Joseph KS, Hoey J. *CMAJ*'s impact factor: room for recalculation [editorial]. CMAJ 1999;161(8):977-8.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxNjEvOC85NzciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMjoiL2NtYWovMTYyLzQvNDkwLjEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

2.  2. Watson J, Crick F. Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature 1953;171:737-8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/171737a0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=13054692&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmaj%2F162%2F4%2F490.1.atom)