  Previous work indicates that over the past 20 years, the highest quality work
have been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In
this paper we examine whether this diversification has also affected the
handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We
examine citation patterns over the past 40 years of 7 long-standing
traditionally elite journals and 6 journals that have been increasing in
importance over the past 20 years. To be among the top 5% or 1% cited papers,
papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since
the late 1980s and early 1990s elite journals have been publishing a decreasing
proportion of these top cited papers. This also applies to the two journals
that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric
indicators of "excellence", Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new
and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of most cited
papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties.
Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in
the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more
diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences.
Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will
always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in "elite" journals,
journal hierarchies are in constant flux so inclusion of journals into this
group is not permanent.
