01736nas a2200301   4500000000100000008004100001260001500042653002100057653002100078653001800099653002500117653002900142100002100171700002400192700002400216700001800240700002100258700001900279700001600298700001800314700001800332245009100350856004000441300001100481490000600492520092200498022001401420       2019                            d  c2019-07-3110aAcademic careers10ahigher education10aimpact factor10ainstitutional policy10ascholarly communications1 aErin C McKiernan1 aLesley A Schimanski1 aCarol Muñoz Nieves1 aLisa Matthias1 aMeredith T Niles1 aJuan P Alperin1 aEmma Pewsey1 aPeter Rodgers1 aBjörn Brembs00aUse of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations  uhttps://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47338  ae473380 v83 aWe analyzed how often and in what ways the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is currently used in review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents of a representative sample of universities from the United States and Canada. 40% of research-intensive institutions and 18% of master’s institutions mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 87% supported its use in at least one of their RPT documents, 13% expressed caution about its use, and none heavily criticized it or prohibited its use. Furthermore, 63% of institutions that mentioned the JIF associated the metric with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. We conclude that use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and that there is work to be done to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.  a2050-084X