Mention impact factor or conference acceptance rate in CV Some people, in their CV or publication list, add bibliometric information to each entry. I've typically seen:


mention the impact factor of each journal
number of citations of each paper
mention the acceptance rate of each conference


I'm not sure it is very helpful: people from your field will surely know the journals/conferences, while people from outside your field might be more interested in a “macro” view and not go into the minute details of your publications.

Moreover, I'm not sure I like the tone it conveys: it feels like bragging (this is typically done by people who are proud of these indicators), and a bit over-the-top to me. Finally, it's well accepted by now that things like the journal impact factor are a poor measure of individual papers' merits.

So: is it accepted practice to do it? does it improve the CV? or does it risk alienating the reader?
You should not put journal impact factors in your CV.  Here's why:

By doing so, you imply that the IF is a useful indicator of the value of individual article(s) you have published in a journal.  However, the IF is not a useful indicator in this regard, and was never intended to be.

You also give the impression that your research does not stand on its own merits -- that it is worthwhile only because it was stamped by a high IF journal.  If your research really is important, use the grant application to explain why.

As other comments have stated, anyone in the field already knows the good journals -- and they're often not the ones with the highest impact factors.  IF is poorly correlated with expert opinion.

You may still disagree, so I will appeal to your self-interest.  Including the IF will leave a poor impression with evaluators who understand the limitations of the IF.  They may even be signers of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which states among other things:



...the Journal Impact Factor has a number of well-documented deficiencies as a tool for research assessment. These limitations include: A) citation distributions within journals are highly skewed [1–3]; B) the properties of the Journal Impact Factor are field-specific: it is a composite of multiple, highly diverse article types, including primary research papers and reviews [1, 4]; C) Journal Impact Factors can be manipulated (or &quot;gamed&quot;) by editorial policy [5]; and D) data used to calculate the Journal Impact Factors are neither transparent nor openly available to the public [4, 6, 7].
General Recommendation: Do not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist's contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.

In short, by trying to use the IF to establish value of your research, you're only broadcasting your ignorance, as even Wikipedia can tell you:

It is important to note that impact factor is a journal metric and should not be used to assess individual researchers or institutions.