The Dilemma of Impact: A Case for Fewer but Better Papers

Few scientists can agree on a standard definition of "impact."Some may set their impact scales by journal rankings, some may measure impact based on the number of citations or downloads, and still others may claim "I know it when I see it," rejecting the notion that impact is quantifiable.One cannot help feeling chagrined by the irony of our inability to standardize manuscript impact when the publish-or-perish model of science motivates us to publish more-ideally "impactful"-papers.For a manuscript to be of high impact, we contend, it must prove useful.A useful paper might report a novel discovery or disprove a previously held assumption.Many papers that provide a new method or conceptual framework prove to be useful and are highly cited.A useful paper might address a recognized gap in understanding or establish a link between processes previously assumed or conceptualized as unconnected.The results of a useful manuscript may be applicable to multiple other disciplines, earth systems, and/or environmental conditions.A paper with one or more of these traits combined both with robust science and strong writing will frequently lead to improved download and citation metrics and may influence future science, policy, and management.In short, these manuscripts will be regarded, rightfully so, as impactful papers (Fig. 1; green stars).Impact is therefore intimately linked to quality, and quality itself has multiple dimensions, which include the novelty, relevance, and robustness of its underlying ideas, approaches, results, and discoveries, and their articulation through effective writing and visualization.In a perfect world, then, impact and quality should go hand in hand, and impactful papers should also be of high quality (Fig. 1; green stars).High-quality papers start with highquality science.Quality science includes clear