More than 100 academic institutions and research funders worldwide have affirmed that publications in eLife remain valid for hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, following the journal’s shift away from using the Journal Impact Factor. The confirmations reflect growing institutional acceptance of alternative models of scholarly publishing and research assessment.
These affirmations result from a coordinated effort by eLife to assess how its publishing approach is being received within the global academic community. Responses, which represented a broad international base—including Aarhus University, the Academy of Medical Sciences, Caltech, King’s College London, and the University of Virginia—demonstrated over 95% support for non-traditional research assessment frameworks. The Chinese Academy of Sciences has also maintained eLife's status as a top-tier journal.
This institutional recognition follows recent changes in eLife's indexing status. In dialogue with Clarivate, eLife chose partial indexing in the Web of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) rather than adjust its publishing model, which means the journal will no longer receive a Journal Impact Factor. The journal remains indexed in open platforms such as PubMed Central, Europe PMC, and OpenAlex.
Organisations expressed concern that decisions by major indexers risk reinforcing reliance on outdated metrics. The Journal Impact Factor was described as an inadequate measure of research quality, and eLife’s model was cited as an important alternative that prioritises responsible and transparent publishing practices. Commentators emphasized the importance of supporting models that align with open science and equitable research dissemination.
Institutional respondents also reiterated their commitment to frameworks such as the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), which call for evaluation systems focused on the intrinsic quality of research rather than journal-level metrics.
Participating organisations span public and private universities, national academies, and research councils across countries including the UK, US, Germany, the Netherlands, India, and Singapore. Members of the Russell Group, the League of European Research Universities, and other major academic networks were among those confirming their positions.
Institutions such as the University of Sheffield and King’s College London stated that eLife's absence of an Impact Factor does not hinder their internal assessment processes, which prioritize responsible research evaluation. Several institutions noted that they had already adjusted their hiring and promotion procedures to support a broader range of research outputs.
eLife’s publishing model, introduced in January 2023, removes binary accept–reject decisions after peer review and emphasizes public review and assessment of preprints. The model is designed to make both the research and evaluative feedback openly accessible and constructive for the wider community.
The journal continues to engage with research institutions to gather further input on the role of Impact Factor and similar metrics in scholarly evaluation.
Click here to read the original press release.
