Journal impact factors were devised to qualify and compare university library holdings but are frequently repurposed for use in ranking applications, research papers, and even individual applicants in mycology and beyond. The widely held assumption that mycological studies published in journals with high impact factors add more to systematic mycology than studies published in journals without high impact factors nevertheless lacks evidential underpinning. The present study uses the species hypothesis system of the UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi and other eukaryotes to trace the publication history and impact factor of sequences uncovering new fungal species hypotheses. The data show that journal impact factors are poor predictors of discovery potential in systematic mycology. There is no clear relationship between journal impact factor and the discovery of new species hypotheses for the years 2000–2021. On the contrary, we found journals with low, and even no, impact factor to account for substantial parts of the species hypothesis landscape, often discovering new fungal taxa that are only later picked up by journals with high impact factors. Funding agencies and hiring committees that insist on upholding journal impact factors as a central funding and recruitment criterion in systematic mycology should consider using indicators such as research quality, productivity, outreach activities, review services for scientific journals, and teaching ability directly rather than using publication in high impact factor journals as a proxy for these indicators.