There seems to be a common view that on CVs (and grant applications) people should list the Impact Factors for each journal in which they have a paper.
To me this "information" is just noise and clutter.
I do not include it in my own CV or grant applications.
1. IFs just encode something I know already.
Nature > Science > PRL ~ JACS > Phys. Rev B ~ J. Chem. Phys. > Physica B ~ Int. J. Mod. Phys. B > Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland .....
2. There is a large random element in success or failure to get an individual paper published in a high profile journal. e.g., who the referees are.
3. The average citations of a journal is not a good measure of the significance of a specific paper. There is a large variance. What really matters is how much YOUR/MY specific paper in that journal is cited in the long term. Unfortunately, in most cases it is hard to know in less than 3-5 years.
4. Crap papers can get published in Nature and Science. Hendrik Schon published almost 20 papers in Nature and Science. On the other hand, Nobel Prize winning papers are sometimes published in Phys. Rev. B (e.g. giant magnetoresistance).
5. I don't need to know the actual IF of a journal with an impact factor of one or less in order to know that it is a rubbish journal. I already know that because I virtually never read papers in such journals simply because they virtually never contain anything that is significant, interesting, or valid. My "random" meanderings through the literature virtually never lead me there.
6. I remain to be convinced that reporting IFs to more than 2 significant figures and without error bars is meaningful.
I fail to see that alternative metrics such as the Eigenfactor resolve the above objections.
The only value I see in IFs is helping librarians compile draft lists of journals to cancel subscriptions to in order to save money.
I am skeptical that IFs are useful for comparing the research performance of people in different fields (e.g. biology vs. civil engineering vs. psychology vs. chemistry).
And in the end... what really matters is whether the paper contains interesting, significant, and valid results... Actually looking as some of an applicant's papers and critically evaluating them is the best "metric". But that requires effort and thought...