fbpx
Wikipedia

Impact factor

January 10, 2023

This article is about a measure of journal influence. For other similar metrics, see Citation impact.

The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a scientometric index calculated by Clarivate that reflects the yearly mean number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal, as indexed by Clarivate's Web of Science. As a journal-level metric, it is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher impact factor values are given the status of being more important, or carry more prestige in their respective fields, than those with lower values. While frequently used by universities and funding bodies to decide on promotion and research proposals, it has come under attack for distorting good scientific practices.[1][2][3]

History

The impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in Philadelphia. Impact factors began to be calculated yearly starting from 1975 for journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). ISI was acquired by Thomson Scientific & Healthcare in 1992,[4] and became known as Thomson ISI. In 2018, Thomson-Reuters spun off and sold ISI to Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia.[5] They founded a new corporation, Clarivate, which is now the publisher of the JCR.[6]

Calculation

In any given year, the two-year journal impact factor is the ratio between the number of citations received in that year for publications in that journal that were published in the two preceding years and the total number of "citable items" published in that journal during the two preceding years:[7][8]

 

For example, Nature had an impact factor of 41.577 in 2017:[9]

 

This means that, on average, its papers published in 2015 and 2016 received roughly 42 citations each in 2017. Note that 2017 impact factors are reported in 2018; they cannot be calculated until all of the 2017 publications have been processed by the indexing agency.

The value of impact factor depends on how to define "citations" and "publications"; the latter are often referred to as "citable items". In current practice, both "citations" and "publications" are defined exclusively by ISI as follows. "Publications" are items that are classed as "article", "review" or "proceedings paper"[10] in the Web of Science (WoS) database; other items like editorials, corrections, notes, retractions and discussions are excluded. WoS is accessible to all registered users, who can independently verify the number of citable items for a given journal. In contrast, the number of citations is extracted not from the WoS database, but from a dedicated JCR database, which is not accessible to general readers. Hence, the commonly used "JCR Impact Factor" is a proprietary value, which is defined and calculated by ISI and can not be verified by external users.[11]

New journals, which are indexed from their first published issue, will receive an impact factor after two years of indexing; in this case, the citations to the year prior to volume 1, and the number of articles published in the year prior to volume 1, are known zero values. Journals that are indexed starting with a volume other than the first volume will not get an impact factor until they have been indexed for three years. Occasionally, Journal Citation Reports assigns an impact factor to new journals with less than two years of indexing, based on partial citation data.[12][13] The calculation always uses two complete and known years of item counts, but for new titles one of the known counts is zero. Annuals and other irregular publications sometimes publish no items in a particular year, affecting the count. The impact factor relates to a specific time period; it is possible to calculate it for any desired period. For example, the JCR also includes a five-year impact factor, which is calculated by dividing the number of citations to the journal in a given year by the number of articles published in that journal in the previous five years.[14][15]

Use

While originally invented as a tool to help university librarians to decide which journals to purchase, the impact factor soon became used as a measure for judging academic success. This use of impact factors was summarised by Hoeffel in 1998:[16]

Impact Factor is not a perfect tool to measure the quality of articles but there is nothing better and it has the advantage of already being in existence and is, therefore, a good technique for scientific evaluation. Experience has shown that in each specialty the best journals are those in which it is most difficult to have an article accepted, and these are the journals that have a high impact factor. Most of these journals existed long before the impact factor was devised. The use of impact factor as a measure of quality is widespread because it fits well with the opinion we have in each field of the best journals in our specialty....In conclusion, prestigious journals publish papers of high level. Therefore, their impact factor is high, and not the contrary.

As impact factors are a journal-level metric, rather than an article- or individual-level metric, this use is controversial. Eugene Garfield, the inventor of the JIF agreed with Hoeffel,[17] but warned about the "misuse in evaluating individuals" because there is "a wide variation [of citations] from article to article within a single journal".[18] Despite this warning, the use of the JIF has evolved, playing a key role in the process of assessing individual researchers, their job applications and their funding proposals. In 2005, The Journal of Cell Biology noted that:

Impact factor data ... have a strong influence on the scientific community, affecting decisions on where to publish, whom to promote or hire, the success of grant applications, and even salary bonuses.[19]

More targeted research has begun to provide firm evidence of how deeply the impact factor is embedded within formal and informal research assessment processes. A review in 2019 studied how often the JIF featured in documents related to the review, promotion, and tenure of scientists in US and Canadian universities. It concluded that 40% of universities focussed on academic research specifically mentioned the JIF as part of such review, promotion, and tenure processes.[20] And a 2017 study of how researchers in the life sciences behave concluded that "everyday decision-making practices as highly governed by pressures to publish in high-impact journals". The deeply embedded nature of such indicators not only effect research assessment, but the more fundamental issue of what research is actually undertaken: "Given the current ways of evaluation and valuing research, risky, lengthy, and unorthodox project rarely take center stage."[21]

Criticism

Numerous critiques have been made regarding the use of impact factors, both in terms of its statistical validity and also of its implications for how science is carried out and assessed.[3][22][23][24][25] A 2007 study noted that the most fundamental flaw is that impact factors present the mean of data that are not normally distributed, and suggested that it would be more appropriate to present the median of these data.[19] There is also a more general debate on the validity of the impact factor as a measure of journal importance and the effect of policies that editors may adopt to boost their impact factor (perhaps to the detriment of readers and writers). Other criticism focuses on the effect of the impact factor on behavior of scholars, editors and other stakeholders.[26] Others have made more general criticisms, arguing that emphasis on impact factor results from the negative influence of neoliberal politics on academia. These more politicised arguments demand not just replacement of the impact factor with more sophisticated metrics but also discussion on the social value of research assessment and the growing precariousness of scientific careers in higher education.[27][28]

Inapplicability of impact factor to individuals and between-discipline differences

It has been stated that impact factors in particular and citation analysis in general are affected by field-dependent factors[29] which invalidate comparisons not only across disciplines but even within different fields of research of one discipline.[30] The percentage of total citations occurring in the first two years after publication also varies highly among disciplines from 1–3% in the mathematical and physical sciences to 5–8% in the biological sciences.[31] Thus impact factors cannot be used to compare journals across disciplines.

Impact factors are sometimes used to evaluate not only the journals but the papers therein, thereby devaluing papers in certain subjects.[32] In 2004, the Higher Education Funding Council for England was urged by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee to remind Research Assessment Exercise panels that they are obliged to assess the quality of the content of individual articles, not the reputation of the journal in which they are published.[33] Other studies have repeatedly stated that impact factor is a metric for journals and should not be used to assess individual researchers or institutions.[34][35][36]

Questionable editorial policies that affect the impact factor

See also: Conflicts of interest in academic publishing § COIs of journals

Because impact factor is commonly accepted as a proxy for research quality, some journals adopt editorial policies and practices, some acceptable and some of dubious purpose, to increase its impact factor.[37][38] For example, journals may publish a larger percentage of review articles which generally are cited more than research reports.[8] Research undertaken in 2020 on dentistry journals concluded that the publication of "systematic reviews have significant effect on the Journal Impact Factor ... while papers publishing clinical trials bear no influence on this factor. Greater yearly average of published papers ... means a higher impact factor."[39]

Journals may also attempt to limit the number of "citable items"—i.e., the denominator of the impact factor equation—either by declining to publish articles that are unlikely to be cited (such as case reports in medical journals) or by altering articles (e.g., by not allowing an abstract or bibliography in hopes that Journal Citation Reports will not deem it a "citable item"). As a result of negotiations over whether items are "citable", impact factor variations of more than 300% have been observed.[40] Items considered to be uncitable—and thus are not incorporated in impact factor calculations—can, if cited, still enter into the numerator part of the equation despite the ease with which such citations could be excluded. This effect is hard to evaluate, for the distinction between editorial comment and short original articles is not always obvious. For example, letters to the editor may be part of either class.

Another less insidious tactic journals employ is to publish a large portion of its papers, or at least the papers expected to be highly cited, early in the calendar year. This gives those papers more time to gather citations. Several methods, not necessarily with nefarious intent, exist for a journal to cite articles in the same journal which will increase the journal's impact factor.[41][42]

Beyond editorial policies that may skew the impact factor, journals can take overt steps to game the system. For example, in 2007, the specialist journal Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, with an impact factor of 0.66, published an editorial that cited all its articles from 2005 to 2006 in a protest against the "absurd scientific situation in some countries" related to use of the impact factor.[43] The large number of citations meant that the impact factor for that journal increased to 1.44. As a result of the increase, the journal was not included in the 2008 and 2009 Journal Citation Reports.[44]

Coercive citation is a practice in which an editor forces an author to add extraneous citations to an article before the journal will agree to publish it, in order to inflate the journal's impact factor.[45] A survey published in 2012 indicates that coercive citation has been experienced by one in five researchers working in economics, sociology, psychology, and multiple business disciplines, and it is more common in business and in journals with a lower impact factor.[46] Editors of leading business journals banded together to disavow the practice.[47] However, cases of coercive citation have occasionally been reported for other disciplines.[48]

Assumed correlation between impact factor and quality

The journal impact factor was originally designed by Eugene Garfield as a metric to help librarians make decisions about which journals were worth indexing, as the JIF aggregates the number of citations to articles published in each journal. Since then, the JIF has become associated as a mark of journal "quality", and gained widespread use for evaluation of research and researchers instead, even at the institutional level. It thus has significant impact on steering research practices and behaviours.[49][50][51]

By 2010, national and international research funding institutions were already starting to point out that numerical indicators such as the JIF should not be considered as a measure of quality.[note 1] In fact, research was indicating that the JIF is a highly manipulated metric,[52][53][54] and the justification for its continued widespread use beyond its original narrow purpose seems due to its simplicity (easily calculable and comparable number), rather than any actual relationship to research quality.[55][56][57]

Empirical evidence shows that the misuse of the JIF—and journal ranking metrics in general—has a number of negative consequences for the scholarly communication system. These include gaps between the reach of a journal and the quality of its individual papers[25] and insufficient coverage of social sciences and humanities as well as research outputs from across Latin America, Africa, and South-East Asia.[citation needed] Additional drawbacks include the marginalization of research in vernacular languages and on locally relevant topics and inducement to unethical authorship and citation practices. More generally, the impact factors fosters a reputation economy, where scientific success is based on publishing in prestigious journals ahead of actual research qualities such as rigorous methods, replicability and social impact. Using journal prestige and the JIF to cultivate a competition regime in academia has been shown to have deleterious effects on research quality.[58]

A number of regional and international initiatives are now providing and suggesting alternative research assessment systems, including key documents such as the Leiden Manifesto[note 2] and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Plan S calls for a broader adoption and implementation of such initiatives alongside fundamental changes in the scholarly communication system.[note 3] As appropriate measures of quality for authors and research, concepts of research excellence should be remodelled around transparent workflows and accessible research results.[59][60][61]

JIFs are still regularly used to evaluate research in many countries which is a problem since a number of issues remain around the opacity of the metric and the fact that it is often negotiated by publishers.[62][63][19]

Negotiated values

Results of an impact factor can change dramatically depending on which items are considered as "citable" and therefore included in the denominator.[64] One notorious example of this occurred in 1988 when it was decided that meeting abstracts published in FASEB Journal would no longer be included in the denominator. The journal's impact factor jumped from 0.24 in 1988 to 18.3 in 1989.[65] Publishers routinely discuss with Clarivate how to improve the "accuracy" of their journals' impact factor and therefore get higher scores.[40][25]

Such discussions routinely produce "negotiated values" which result in dramatic changes in the observed scores for dozens of journals, sometimes after unrelated events like the purchase by one of the larger publishers.[66]

Distribution skewness

 
Journal impact factors are influenced heavily by a small number of highly cited papers. In general, most papers published in 2013–14 received many fewer citations than indicated by the impact factor. Two journals (Nature [blue], PLOS ONE [orange]) are shown to represent a highly cited and less cited journal, respectively. Note that the high citation impact of Nature is derived from relatively few highly cited papers. Modified after Callaway 2016.[67]

Because citation counts have highly skewed distributions,[24] the mean number of citations is potentially misleading if used to gauge the typical impact of articles in the journal rather than the overall impact of the journal itself.[68] For example, about 90% of Nature's 2004 impact factor was based on only a quarter of its publications. Thus the actual number of citations for a single article in the journal is in most cases much lower than the mean number of citations across articles.[69] Furthermore, the strength of the relationship between impact factors of journals and the citation rates of the papers therein has been steadily decreasing since articles began to be available digitally.[70]

The effect of outliers can be seen in the case of the article "A short history of SHELX", which included this sentence: "This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of the open-source SHELX programs (and the Bruker AXS version SHELXTL) are employed in the course of a crystal-structure determination". This article received more than 6,600 citations. As a consequence, the impact factor of the journal Acta Crystallographica Section A rose from 2.051 in 2008 to 49.926 in 2009, more than Nature (at 31.434) and Science (at 28.103).[71] The second-most cited article in Acta Crystallographica Section A in 2008 only had 28 citations.[72]

Critics of the JIF state that use of the arithmetic mean in its calculation is problematic because the pattern of citation distribution is skewed[73] and citation distributions metrics have been proposed as an alternative to impact factors.[74][75][76]

However, there have also been pleas to take a more nuanced approach to judging the distribution skewness of the impact factor. Waltman and Traag[who?], in their 2021 paper, ran numerous simulations and concluded that "statistical objections against the use of the IF at the level of individual articles are not convincing", and that "the IF may be a more accurate indicator of the value of an article than the number of citations of the article".[1]

Lack of reproducibility

While the underlying mathematical model is publicly known, the dataset which is used to calculate the JIF is not publicly available. This prompted criticism: "Just as scientists would not accept the findings in a scientific paper without seeing the primary data, so should they not rely on Thomson Scientific's impact factor, which is based on hidden data".[19] However, a 2019 article demonstrated that "with access to the data and careful cleaning, the JIF can be reproduced", although this required much labour to achieve.[77] A 2020 research paper went further. It indicated that by querying open access or partly open-access databases, like Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Scopus, it is possible to calculate approximate impact factors without the need to purchase Web of Science / JCR.[78]

Broader negative impact on science

Just as the impact factor has attracted criticism for various immediate problems associated with its application, so has there also been criticism that its application undermines the broader process of science. Research has indicated that bibliometrics figures, particularly the impact factor, decrease the quality of peer review an article receiving,[79] a reluctance to share data,[21] decreasing quality of articles,[80] and a reduced scope in terms of what they can research. "For many researchers the only research questions and projects that appear viable are those that can meet the demand of scoring well in terms of metric performance indicators - and chiefly the journal impact factor.".[21] Furthermore, the process of publication and science is slowed down - authors automatically try and publish with the journals with the highest impact factor - "as editors and reviewers are tasked with reviewing papers that are not submitted to the most appropriate venues."[77]

Institutional responses to criticism of the impact factor

Given the growing criticism and its widespread usage as a means of research assessment, organisations and institutions have begun to take steps to move away from the journal impact factor. In November 2007 the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) issued an official statement recommending "that journal impact factors are used only—and cautiously—for measuring and comparing the influence of entire journals, but not for the assessment of single papers, and certainly not for the assessment of researchers or research programmes".[23]

In July 2008, the International Council for Science Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science issued a "statement on publication practices and indices and the role of peer review in research assessment", suggesting many possible solutions—e.g., considering a limit number of publications per year to be taken into consideration for each scientist, or even penalising scientists for an excessive number of publications per year—e.g., more than 20.[81]

In February 2010, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) published new guidelines to reduce the number of publications could submit when applying for funding: "The focus has not been on what research someone has done but rather how many papers have been published and where." They noted that for decisions concerning "performance-based funding allocations, postdoctoral qualifications, appointments, or reviewing funding proposals, [where] increasing importance has been given to numerical indicators such as the h-index and the impact factor".[82] The UK's Research Assessment Exercise for 2014 also banned the journal impact factor[83] although evidence suggested that this ban was often ignored.[84]

In response to growing concerns over the inappropriate use of journal impact factors in evaluating scientific outputs and scientists themselves, the American Society for Cell Biology together with a group of editors and publishers of scholarly journals created the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Released in May 2013, DORA has garnered support from thousands of individuals and hundreds of institutions,[28] including in March 2015 the League of European Research Universities (a consortium of 21 of the most renowned research universities in Europe),[85] who have endorsed the document on the DORA website.

Publishers, even those with high impact factors, also recognised the flaws.[86] Nature magazine criticised the over reliance of JIF, pointing not just to its statistical but to negative effects on science: "The resulting pressures and disappointments are nothing but demoralizing, and in badly run labs can encourage sloppy research that, for example, fails to test assumptions thoroughly or to take all the data into account before submitting big claims."[87] Various publishers now use a mixture of metrics on their website; the PLOS series of journals does not display the impact factor.[88] Microsoft Academic took a similar view, stating that h-index, EI/SCI and journal impact factors are not shown because "the research literature has provided abundant evidence that these metrics are at best a rough approximation of research impact and scholarly influence."[89]

In 2021, Utrecht University promised to abandon all quantitative bibliometrics, including the impact factor. The university stated that "it has become a very sick model that goes beyond what is really relevant for science and putting science forward."[90][91] This followed a 2018 decision by the main Dutch funding body for research, NWO, to remove all references to journal impact factors and the h-index in all call texts and application forms.[92] Utrecht's decision met with some resistance. An open letter signed by over 150 Dutch academics argued that while imperfect, the JIF is still useful, and that omitting it "will lead to randomness and a compromising of scientific quality."[93]

Closely related indices

Some related metrics, also calculated and published by the same organization, include:

  • Cited half-life: the median age of the articles that were cited in Journal Citation Reports each year. For example, if a journal's half-life in 2005 is 5, that means the citations from 2001 to 2005 are half of all the citations from that journal in 2005, and the other half of the citations precede 2001.[94]
  • Aggregate impact factor for a subject category: it is calculated taking into account the number of citations to all journals in the subject category and the number of articles from all the journals in the subject category.
  • Immediacy index: the number of citations the articles in a journal receive in a given year divided by the number of articles published.
  • Journal citation indicator (JCI): a JIF that adjusts for scientific field; it is similar to Source Normalized Impact per Paper, calculated based on the Scopus database.[95]

As with the impact factor, there are some nuances to this: for example, Clarivate excludes certain article types (such as news items, correspondence, and errata) from the denominator.[96][97][98][10]

Other measures of scientific impact

Main article: Citation metrics
Further information: Scientometrics

Additional journal-level metrics are available from other organizations. For example, CiteScore is a metric for serial titles in Scopus launched in December 2016 by Elsevier.[99][100] While these metrics apply only to journals, there are also author-level metrics, such as the h-index, that apply to individual researchers. In addition, article-level metrics measure impact at an article level instead of journal level.

Other more general alternative metrics, or "altmetrics", that include article views, downloads, or mentions in social media, offer a different perspective on research impact, concentrating more on immediate social impact in and outside academia.[61][101]

Counterfeit impact factors

Fake impact factors or bogus impact factors are produced by certain companies or individuals.[102] According to an article published in the Electronic Physician, these include Global Impact Factor, Citefactor, and Universal Impact Factor.[102] Jeffrey Beall maintained a list of such misleading metrics.[103][104] Another deceitful practice is reporting "alternative impact factors", calculated as the average number of citations per article using citation indices other than JCR, even if based on reputable sources such as Google Scholar (e.g., "Google-based Journal Impact Factor").[105]

False impact factors are often used by predatory publishers.[106][107] Consulting Journal Citation Reports' master journal list can confirm if a publication is indexed by the Journal Citation Reports.[108] The use of fake impact metrics is considered a red flag.[109]

See also

Notes on alternatives

  1. ^ "'Quality Not Quantity' – DFG Adopts Rules to Counter the Flood of Publications in Research" (Press release). Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation). 2010. DFG Press Release No. 7.
  2. ^ "The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics". 2015.
  3. ^ "Plan S implementation guidelines". February 2019.

References

  1. ^ a b Waltman L, Traag VA (1 March 2021). "Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?". F1000Research. 9: 366. doi:10.12688/f1000research.23418.2. PMC 7974631. PMID 33796272.
  2. ^ Curry S (February 2018). "Let's move beyond the rhetoric: it's time to change how we judge research". Nature. 554 (7691): 147. Bibcode:2018Natur.554..147C. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w. PMID 29420505.
  3. ^ a b Hutchins, BI; Yuan, X; Anderson, JM; Santangelo, GM (September 2016). "Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level". PLOS Biology. 14 (9): e1002541. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541. PMC 5012559. PMID 27599104.
  4. ^ . Online. July 1992. Archived from the original on 15 May 2013. Retrieved 26 February 2012.
  5. ^ "Acquisition of the Thomson Reuters Intellectual Property and Science Business by Onex and Baring Asia Completed".
  6. ^ "Journal Citation Reports". Web of Science Group. Retrieved 14 September 2019.
  7. ^ "Web of Science Group". Web of Science Group. 5 August 2019. Retrieved 28 July 2020.
  8. ^ a b "The Clarivate Impact Factor". Clarivate. 20 June 1994.
  9. ^ "Nature". 2017 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Thomson Reuters. 2018.
  10. ^ a b McVeigh ME, Mann SJ (September 2009). "The journal impact factor denominator: defining citable (counted) items". JAMA. 302 (10): 1107–9. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1301. PMID 19738096.
  11. ^ Hubbard SC, McVeigh ME (2011). "Casting a wide net: The Journal Impact Factor numerator". Learned Publishing. 24 (2): 133–137. doi:10.1087/20110208. S2CID 20172401.
  12. ^ "RSC Advances receives its first partial impact factor". RSC Advances Blog. 24 June 2013. Retrieved 16 July 2018.
  13. ^ Konforti, Boyana (30 July 2014). "Our first (partial) impact factor and our continuing (full) story". Cell Mentor.
  14. ^ . Archived from the original on 2 January 2010. Retrieved 26 August 2009.
  15. ^ "ISI 5-Year Impact Factor". APA. Retrieved 12 November 2017.
  16. ^ Hoeffel C (December 1998). "Journal impact factors". Allergy. 53 (12): 1225. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03848.x. PMID 9930604. S2CID 5773127.
  17. ^ Garfield E (January 2006). "The history and meaning of the journal impact factor". JAMA. 295 (1): 90–3. Bibcode:2006JAMA..295...90G. doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90. PMID 16391221. S2CID 31183037.
  18. ^ Garfield E (June 1998). "[The impact factor and its proper application]". Der Unfallchirurg. 101 (6): 413–4. PMID 9677838.
  19. ^ a b c d Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E (December 2007). "Show me the data". The Journal of Cell Biology. 179 (6): 1091–2. doi:10.1083/jcb.200711140. PMC 2140038. PMID 18086910.
  20. ^ McKiernan EC, Schimanski LA, Muñoz Nieves C, Matthias L, Niles MT, Alperin JP (July 2019). "Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations". eLife. 8. doi:10.7554/eLife.47338. PMC 6668985. PMID 31364991.
  21. ^ a b c Müller, Ruth; de Rijcke, Sarah (1 July 2017). "Thinking with indicators. Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences". Research Evaluation. 26 (3): 157–168. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvx023. ISSN 0958-2029.
  22. ^ "Time to remodel the journal impact factor". Nature. 535 (7613): 466. July 2016. Bibcode:2016Natur.535..466.. doi:10.1038/535466a. PMID 27466089.
  23. ^ a b "EASE Statement on Inappropriate Use of Impact Factors". European Association of Science Editors. Retrieved 23 July 2012.
  24. ^ a b Callaway E (July 2016). "Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric". Nature. 535 (7611): 210–1. Bibcode:2016Natur.535..210C. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20224. PMID 27411614.
  25. ^ a b c Brembs B, Button K, Munafò M (2013). "Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 7: 291. arXiv:1301.3748. Bibcode:2013arXiv1301.3748B. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291. PMC 3690355. PMID 23805088.
  26. ^ van Wesel M (February 2016). "Evaluation by Citation: Trends in Publication Behavior, Evaluation Criteria, and the Strive for High Impact Publications". Science and Engineering Ethics. 22 (1): 199–225. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9638-0. PMC 4750571. PMID 25742806.
  27. ^ Kansa E (27 January 2014). "It's the Neoliberalism, Stupid: Why instrumentalist arguments for Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science are not enough". LSE Impact Blog. Retrieved 16 July 2018.
  28. ^ a b Cabello F, Rascón MT (2015). "The Index and the Moon. Mortgaging Scientific Evaluation". International Journal of Communication. 9: 1880–1887.
  29. ^ Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2008). "What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior". Journal of Documentation. 64 (1): 45–80. doi:10.1108/00220410810844150. hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-0013-7A94-3.
  30. ^ Anauati MV, Galiani S, Gálvez RM (11 November 2014). "Quantifying the Life Cycle of Scholarly Articles Across Fields of Economic Research". SSRN 2523078.
  31. ^ van Nierop E (2009). "Why Do Statistics Journals Have Low Impact Factors?". Statistica Neerlandica. 63 (1): 52–62. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9574.2008.00408.x. S2CID 247704905.
  32. ^ Bohannon J (2016). "Hate journal impact factors? New study gives you one more reason". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aag0643.
  33. ^ "House of Commons – Science and Technology – Tenth Report". 7 July 2004. Retrieved 28 July 2008.
  34. ^ Seglen PO (February 1997). "Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research". BMJ. 314 (7079): 498–502. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497. PMC 2126010. PMID 9056804.
  35. ^ "EASE Statement on Inappropriate Use of Impact Factors". European Association of Science Editors. November 2007. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
  36. ^ Wilsdon J, Allen L, Belfiore E, Campbell P, Curry S, Hill S, et al. (July 2015). The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management (Report). doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.
  37. ^ Monastersky R (14 October 2005). "The Number That's Devouring Science". The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  38. ^ Arnold DN, Fowler KK (2011). "Nefarious Numbers". Notices of the American Mathematical Society. 58 (3): 434–437. arXiv:1010.0278. Bibcode:2010arXiv1010.0278A.
  39. ^ Valderrama P, Escabias M, Valderrama MJ, Jiménez-Contreras E, Baca P (March 2020). "Influential variables in the Journal Impact Factor of Dentistry journals". Heliyon. 6 (3): e03575. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03575. PMC 7082530. PMID 32211547.
  40. ^ a b PLoS Medicine Editors (June 2006). "The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature". PLOS Medicine. 3 (6): e291. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291. PMC 1475651. PMID 16749869. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  41. ^ Agrawal AA (April 2005). (PDF). Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 20 (4): 157. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.002. PMID 16701362. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 June 2010.
  42. ^ Fassoulaki A, Papilas K, Paraskeva A, Patris K (August 2002). "Impact factor bias and proposed adjustments for its determination". Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 46 (7): 902–5. doi:10.1034/j.1399-6576.2002.460723.x. PMID 12139549. S2CID 20805963.
  43. ^ Schutte HK, Svec JG (2007). "Reaction of Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica on the current trend of impact factor measures". Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 59 (6): 281–5. doi:10.1159/000108334. PMID 17965570. S2CID 7595296.
  44. ^ . Archived from the original on 15 May 2010. Retrieved 24 September 2009.
  45. ^ McLeod S (25 September 2020). "Should authors cite sources suggested by peer reviewers? Six antidotes for handling potentially coercive reviewer citation suggestions". Learned Publishing. 34 (2): 282–286. doi:10.1002/leap.1335. ISSN 0953-1513. S2CID 225004022.
  46. ^ Wilhite AW, Fong EA (February 2012). "Scientific publications. Coercive citation in academic publishing". Science. 335 (6068): 542–3. Bibcode:2012Sci...335..542W. doi:10.1126/science.1212540. PMID 22301307. S2CID 30073305.
  47. ^ Lynch JG (March 2012). "Business journals combat coercive citation". Science. 335 (6073): 1169.1–1169. Bibcode:2012Sci...335.1169L. doi:10.1126/science.335.6073.1169-a. PMID 22403371.
  48. ^ Dyer C (February 1997). "Widow can be inseminated with husband's sperm". BMJ. 314 (7079): 461. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.461d. PMC 2125988. PMID 9056791.
  49. ^ Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Lariviere V, Gingras Y, Carr L, Brody T, Harnad S (2018). "The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects". arXiv:1801.08992 [cs.DL].
  50. ^ Curry S (February 2018). "Let's move beyond the rhetoric: it's time to change how we judge research". Nature. 554 (7691): 147. Bibcode:2018Natur.554..147C. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w. PMID 29420505.
  51. ^ Al-Hoorie A, Vitta JP (2019). "The seven sins of L2 research: A review of 30 journals' statistical quality and their CiteScore, SJR, SNIP, JCR Impact Factors". Language Teaching Research. 23 (6): 727–744. doi:10.1177/1362168818767191. S2CID 149857357.
  52. ^ Falagas ME, Alexiou VG (2008). "The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation". Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis. 56 (4): 223–6. doi:10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5. PMID 18661263. S2CID 7482376.
  53. ^ Tort AB, Targino ZH, Amaral OB (2012). "Rising publication delays inflate journal impact factors". PLOS ONE. 7 (12): e53374. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...753374T. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053374. PMC 3534064. PMID 23300920.
  54. ^ Fong EA, Wilhite AW (2017). "Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research". PLOS ONE. 12 (12): e0187394. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1287394F. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187394. PMC 5718422. PMID 29211744.
  55. ^ Adler R, Ewing J, Taylor P (2009). "Citation Statistics: A Report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in Cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS)" (PDF). Statistical Science. 24 (1): 1–14. arXiv:0910.3529. doi:10.1214/09-STS285. ISSN 0883-4237. JSTOR 20697661. S2CID 219477.
  56. ^ Brembs B (2018). "Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 12: 37. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037. PMC 5826185. PMID 29515380.
  57. ^ Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Lariviere V, Gingras Y, Carr L, Brody T, Harnad S (2009). "The Impact Factor's Matthew Effect: A Natural Experiment in Bibliometrics". arXiv:0908.3177 [physics.soc-ph].
  58. ^ Vessuri H, Guédon JC, Cetto AM (2014). "Excellence or Quality? Impact of the Current Competition Regime on Science and Scientific Publishing in Latin America and Its Implications for Development" (PDF). Current Sociology. 62 (5): 647–665. doi:10.1177/0011392113512839. S2CID 25166127.
  59. ^ Moore S, Neylon C, Eve MP, O'Donnell DP, Pattinson D (2017). "'Excellence R Us': University Research and the Fetishisation of Excellence". Palgrave Communications. 3. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2016.105.
  60. ^ Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012). "Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society". Science and Public Policy. 39 (6): 751–760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093.
  61. ^ a b Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de Rijcke S, Rafols I (April 2015). "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics". Nature. 520 (7548): 429–31. Bibcode:2015Natur.520..429H. doi:10.1038/520429a. PMID 25903611.
  62. ^ "Open Access and the Divide between 'Mainstream" and "peripheral". Como Gerir e Qualificar Revistas Científicas: 1–25.
  63. ^ Alperin JP, Muñoz Nieves C, Schimanski LA, Fischman GE, Niles MT, McKiernan EC (February 2019). "How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents?". eLife. 8. doi:10.7554/eLife.42254. PMC 6391063. PMID 30747708.
  64. ^ Adam D (February 2002). "The counting house". Nature. 415 (6873): 726–9. doi:10.1038/415726a. PMID 11845174. S2CID 4407346.
  65. ^ Baylis M, Gravenor M, Kao R (September 1999). "Sprucing up one's impact factor". Nature. 401 (6751): 322. doi:10.1038/43768-c1. PMID 10517624. S2CID 4356889.
  66. ^ Brembs B (8 January 2016). "Just how widespread are impact factor negotiations?". Retrieved 14 July 2020.
  67. ^ Callaway E (July 2016). "Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric". Nature. 535 (7611): 210–1. Bibcode:2016Natur.535..210C. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20224. PMID 27411614.
  68. ^ Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research (12 June 2008). "Citation Statistics" (PDF). International Mathematical Union.
  69. ^ "Not-so-deep impact". Nature. 435 (7045): 1003–4. June 2005. doi:10.1038/4351003b. PMID 15973362.
  70. ^ Lozano GA, Larivière V, Gingras Y (2012). "The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63 (11): 2140–2145. arXiv:1205.4328. Bibcode:2012arXiv1205.4328L. doi:10.1002/asi.22731. S2CID 492922.
  71. ^ Grant B (21 June 2010). "New impact factors yield surprises". The Scientist. Retrieved 31 March 2011.
  72. ^ McVeigh M (17 June 2010). . Archived from the original on 12 October 2017. Retrieved 16 July 2018.
  73. ^ Larivière V, Kiermer V, MacCallum CJ, McNutt M, Patterson M, Pulverer B, et al. (2016). "A Simple Proposal for the Publication of Journal Citation Distributions". bioRxiv 10.1101/062109.
  74. ^ Kiermer V (2016). "Measuring Up: Impact Factors Do Not Reflect Article Citation Rates". PLOS.
  75. ^ "Ditching Impact Factors for Deeper Data". The Scientist. Retrieved 29 July 2016.
  76. ^ Corneliussen S (2016). "Bad summer for the journal impact factor". Physics Today. doi:10.1063/PT.5.8183.
  77. ^ a b Larivière V, Sugimoto CR (2019), Glänzel W, Moed HF, Schmoch U, Thelwall M (eds.), "The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects", Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, Springer Handbooks, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 3–24, arXiv:1801.08992, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1, ISBN 978-3-030-02510-6, S2CID 3677889
  78. ^ Templ M (19 June 2020). "Modeling and Prediction of the Impact Factor of Journals Using Open-Access Databases: With an Application to the Austrian Journal of Statistics". Austrian Journal of Statistics. 49 (5): 35–58. doi:10.17713/ajs.v49i5.1186. ISSN 1026-597X. S2CID 225704065.
  79. ^ Stephan, Paula; Veugelers, Reinhilde; Wang, Jian (April 2017). "Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics". Nature. 544 (7651): 411–412. Bibcode:2017Natur.544..411S. doi:10.1038/544411a. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 28447652.
  80. ^ "Informing Research Choices: Indicators and Judgment". Retrieved 16 August 2021.
  81. ^ "International Council for Science statement". Icsu.org. 2 May 2014. Retrieved 18 May 2014.
  82. ^ "Quality not Quantity: DFG Adopts Rules to Counter the Flood of Publications in Research". Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. 23 February 2010. Retrieved 16 July 2018.
  83. ^ "Departmental H-Index is a more transparent, fair and cost-effective method for distributing funding to universities". Impact of Social Sciences. 8 February 2013. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
  84. ^ "Business as usual in judging the worth of a researcher?". The Guardian. 30 November 2012. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
  85. ^ . League of European Research Universities. 16 March 2015. Archived from the original on 1 December 2017.
  86. ^ Callaway, Ewen (July 2016). "Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric". Nature. 535 (7611): 210–211. Bibcode:2016Natur.535..210C. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20224. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 27411614. S2CID 4452614.
  87. ^ "Time to remodel the journal impact factor". Nature. 535 (7613): 466. July 2016. Bibcode:2016Natur.535..466.. doi:10.1038/535466a. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 27466089. S2CID 4463743.
  88. ^ "PLOS ONE: accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science". journals.plos.org. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
  89. ^ "Microsoft Academic". academic.microsoft.com. from the original on 5 January 2017. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
  90. ^ Woolston C (July 2021). "Impact factor abandoned by Dutch university in hiring and promotion decisions". Nature. 595 (7867): 462. Bibcode:2021Natur.595..462W. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01759-5. PMID 34172959. S2CID 235647170.
  91. ^ "Recognition and rewards | Universiteit Utrecht". www.uu.nl. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  92. ^ "DORA | NWO". www.nwo.nl. Retrieved 21 July 2021.
  93. ^ "Scientists at odds on Utrecht University reforms to hiring and promotion criteria". www.natureindex.com. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
  94. ^ . Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Archived from the original on 23 May 2008. Retrieved 30 October 2016.
  95. ^ "Journal impact factor gets a sibling that adjusts for scientific field". Science | AAAS. 30 June 2021. Retrieved 30 June 2021.
  96. ^ . Elsevier. Archived from the original on 18 August 2012. Retrieved 9 July 2012. A measure of the speed at which content in a particular journal is picked up and referred to.
  97. ^ "Glossary of Thomson Scientific Terminology". Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
  98. ^ "Journal Citation Reports Contents – Immediacy Index" ((online)). Clarivate Analytics. Retrieved 9 July 2012. The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. The aggregate Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a subject category are cited.
  99. ^ "Metrics – Features – Scopus – Solutions". www.elsevier.com. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  100. ^ Van Noorden R (December 2016). "Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival". Nature. 540 (7633): 325–326. Bibcode:2016Natur.540..325V. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.21131. PMID 27974784.
  101. ^ Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, Neylon C (26 October 2010). "Altmetrics: A manifesto".
  102. ^ a b Jalalian M (2015). "The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them". Electronic Physician. 7 (2): 1069–72. doi:10.14661/2015.1069-1072. PMC 4477767. PMID 26120416.
  103. ^ . Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 11 January 2017.
  104. ^ "Misleading Metrics – Beall's List".
  105. ^ Xia J, Smith MP (2018). "Alternative journal impact factors in open access publishing". Learned Publishing. 31 (4): 403–411. doi:10.1002/leap.1200. ISSN 0953-1513.
  106. ^ Beall J. . Archived from the original on 21 March 2016.
  107. ^ Discussion document: Predatory Publishing (Report). Committee on Publication Ethics. 1 November 2019. doi:10.24318/cope.2019.3.6.
  108. ^ "Master Journal List". Web of Science Group. Clarivate.
  109. ^ Ebrahimzadeh MH (April 2016). "Validated Measures of Publication Quality: Guide for Novice Researchers to Choose an Appropriate Journal for Paper Submission". The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery. 4 (2): 94–6. PMC 4852052. PMID 27200383.

Further reading

  • "Does the 'Impact Factor' Impact Decisions on Where to Publish?". APS News. American Physical Society. 15 (4). April 2006. Retrieved 1 July 2010.
  • Garfield E (October 1999). "Journal impact factor: a brief review". CMAJ. 161 (8): 979–80. PMC 1230709. PMID 10551195.
  • Gilbert N (November 2010). "UK science will be judged on impact". Nature. 468 (7322): 357. Bibcode:2010Natur.468..357G. doi:10.1038/468357a. PMID 21085146.
  • Groesser SN (2012). "Dynamics of Journal Impact Factors" (PDF). Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 29 (6): 624–644. doi:10.1002/sres.2142.
  • Lariviere V, Sugimoto CR (2018). "The Journal Impact Factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects". arXiv:1801.08992 [cs.DL].
  • Marcus A, Oransky I (22 May 2015). "What's Behind Big Science Frauds?". Opinion. The New York Times.
  • "Journal & Country Rank: Rankings by Scopus and Scimago Lab". Scopus and Scimago Lab. Scimago. Retrieved 23 October 2018.

January 10, 2023
impact, factor, this, article, about, measure, journal, influence, other, similar, metrics, citation, impact, impact, factor, journal, impact, factor, academic, journal, scientometric, index, calculated, clarivate, that, reflects, yearly, mean, number, citatio. This article is about a measure of journal influence For other similar metrics see Citation impact The impact factor IF or journal impact factor JIF of an academic journal is a scientometric index calculated by Clarivate that reflects the yearly mean number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal as indexed by Clarivate s Web of Science As a journal level metric it is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field journals with higher impact factor values are given the status of being more important or carry more prestige in their respective fields than those with lower values While frequently used by universities and funding bodies to decide on promotion and research proposals it has come under attack for distorting good scientific practices 1 2 3 Contents 1 History 2 Calculation 3 Use 4 Criticism 4 1 Inapplicability of impact factor to individuals and between discipline differences 4 2 Questionable editorial policies that affect the impact factor 4 3 Assumed correlation between impact factor and quality 4 4 Negotiated values 4 5 Distribution skewness 4 6 Lack of reproducibility 4 7 Broader negative impact on science 5 Institutional responses to criticism of the impact factor 6 Closely related indices 7 Other measures of scientific impact 8 Counterfeit impact factors 9 See also 10 Notes on alternatives 11 References 12 Further readingHistory EditThe impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information ISI in Philadelphia Impact factors began to be calculated yearly starting from 1975 for journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports JCR ISI was acquired by Thomson Scientific amp Healthcare in 1992 4 and became known as Thomson ISI In 2018 Thomson Reuters spun off and sold ISI to Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia 5 They founded a new corporation Clarivate which is now the publisher of the JCR 6 Calculation EditIn any given year the two year journal impact factor is the ratio between the number of citations received in that year for publications in that journal that were published in the two preceding years and the total number of citable items published in that journal during the two preceding years 7 8 IF y Citations y Publications y 1 Publications y 2 displaystyle text IF y frac text Citations y text Publications y 1 text Publications y 2 For example Nature had an impact factor of 41 577 in 2017 9 IF 2017 Citations 2017 Publications 2016 Publications 2015 74090 880 902 41 577 displaystyle text IF 2017 frac text Citations 2017 text Publications 2016 text Publications 2015 frac 74090 880 902 41 577 This means that on average its papers published in 2015 and 2016 received roughly 42 citations each in 2017 Note that 2017 impact factors are reported in 2018 they cannot be calculated until all of the 2017 publications have been processed by the indexing agency The value of impact factor depends on how to define citations and publications the latter are often referred to as citable items In current practice both citations and publications are defined exclusively by ISI as follows Publications are items that are classed as article review or proceedings paper 10 in the Web of Science WoS database other items like editorials corrections notes retractions and discussions are excluded WoS is accessible to all registered users who can independently verify the number of citable items for a given journal In contrast the number of citations is extracted not from the WoS database but from a dedicated JCR database which is not accessible to general readers Hence the commonly used JCR Impact Factor is a proprietary value which is defined and calculated by ISI and can not be verified by external users 11 New journals which are indexed from their first published issue will receive an impact factor after two years of indexing in this case the citations to the year prior to volume 1 and the number of articles published in the year prior to volume 1 are known zero values Journals that are indexed starting with a volume other than the first volume will not get an impact factor until they have been indexed for three years Occasionally Journal Citation Reports assigns an impact factor to new journals with less than two years of indexing based on partial citation data 12 13 The calculation always uses two complete and known years of item counts but for new titles one of the known counts is zero Annuals and other irregular publications sometimes publish no items in a particular year affecting the count The impact factor relates to a specific time period it is possible to calculate it for any desired period For example the JCR also includes a five year impact factor which is calculated by dividing the number of citations to the journal in a given year by the number of articles published in that journal in the previous five years 14 15 Use EditWhile originally invented as a tool to help university librarians to decide which journals to purchase the impact factor soon became used as a measure for judging academic success This use of impact factors was summarised by Hoeffel in 1998 16 Impact Factor is not a perfect tool to measure the quality of articles but there is nothing better and it has the advantage of already being in existence and is therefore a good technique for scientific evaluation Experience has shown that in each specialty the best journals are those in which it is most difficult to have an article accepted and these are the journals that have a high impact factor Most of these journals existed long before the impact factor was devised The use of impact factor as a measure of quality is widespread because it fits well with the opinion we have in each field of the best journals in our specialty In conclusion prestigious journals publish papers of high level Therefore their impact factor is high and not the contrary As impact factors are a journal level metric rather than an article or individual level metric this use is controversial Eugene Garfield the inventor of the JIF agreed with Hoeffel 17 but warned about the misuse in evaluating individuals because there is a wide variation of citations from article to article within a single journal 18 Despite this warning the use of the JIF has evolved playing a key role in the process of assessing individual researchers their job applications and their funding proposals In 2005 The Journal of Cell Biology noted that Impact factor data have a strong influence on the scientific community affecting decisions on where to publish whom to promote or hire the success of grant applications and even salary bonuses 19 More targeted research has begun to provide firm evidence of how deeply the impact factor is embedded within formal and informal research assessment processes A review in 2019 studied how often the JIF featured in documents related to the review promotion and tenure of scientists in US and Canadian universities It concluded that 40 of universities focussed on academic research specifically mentioned the JIF as part of such review promotion and tenure processes 20 And a 2017 study of how researchers in the life sciences behave concluded that everyday decision making practices as highly governed by pressures to publish in high impact journals The deeply embedded nature of such indicators not only effect research assessment but the more fundamental issue of what research is actually undertaken Given the current ways of evaluation and valuing research risky lengthy and unorthodox project rarely take center stage 21 Criticism EditNumerous critiques have been made regarding the use of impact factors both in terms of its statistical validity and also of its implications for how science is carried out and assessed 3 22 23 24 25 A 2007 study noted that the most fundamental flaw is that impact factors present the mean of data that are not normally distributed and suggested that it would be more appropriate to present the median of these data 19 There is also a more general debate on the validity of the impact factor as a measure of journal importance and the effect of policies that editors may adopt to boost their impact factor perhaps to the detriment of readers and writers Other criticism focuses on the effect of the impact factor on behavior of scholars editors and other stakeholders 26 Others have made more general criticisms arguing that emphasis on impact factor results from the negative influence of neoliberal politics on academia These more politicised arguments demand not just replacement of the impact factor with more sophisticated metrics but also discussion on the social value of research assessment and the growing precariousness of scientific careers in higher education 27 28 Inapplicability of impact factor to individuals and between discipline differences Edit It has been stated that impact factors in particular and citation analysis in general are affected by field dependent factors 29 which invalidate comparisons not only across disciplines but even within different fields of research of one discipline 30 The percentage of total citations occurring in the first two years after publication also varies highly among disciplines from 1 3 in the mathematical and physical sciences to 5 8 in the biological sciences 31 Thus impact factors cannot be used to compare journals across disciplines Impact factors are sometimes used to evaluate not only the journals but the papers therein thereby devaluing papers in certain subjects 32 In 2004 the Higher Education Funding Council for England was urged by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee to remind Research Assessment Exercise panels that they are obliged to assess the quality of the content of individual articles not the reputation of the journal in which they are published 33 Other studies have repeatedly stated that impact factor is a metric for journals and should not be used to assess individual researchers or institutions 34 35 36 Questionable editorial policies that affect the impact factor Edit See also Conflicts of interest in academic publishing COIs of journals Because impact factor is commonly accepted as a proxy for research quality some journals adopt editorial policies and practices some acceptable and some of dubious purpose to increase its impact factor 37 38 For example journals may publish a larger percentage of review articles which generally are cited more than research reports 8 Research undertaken in 2020 on dentistry journals concluded that the publication of systematic reviews have significant effect on the Journal Impact Factor while papers publishing clinical trials bear no influence on this factor Greater yearly average of published papers means a higher impact factor 39 Journals may also attempt to limit the number of citable items i e the denominator of the impact factor equation either by declining to publish articles that are unlikely to be cited such as case reports in medical journals or by altering articles e g by not allowing an abstract or bibliography in hopes that Journal Citation Reports will not deem it a citable item As a result of negotiations over whether items are citable impact factor variations of more than 300 have been observed 40 Items considered to be uncitable and thus are not incorporated in impact factor calculations can if cited still enter into the numerator part of the equation despite the ease with which such citations could be excluded This effect is hard to evaluate for the distinction between editorial comment and short original articles is not always obvious For example letters to the editor may be part of either class Another less insidious tactic journals employ is to publish a large portion of its papers or at least the papers expected to be highly cited early in the calendar year This gives those papers more time to gather citations Several methods not necessarily with nefarious intent exist for a journal to cite articles in the same journal which will increase the journal s impact factor 41 42 Beyond editorial policies that may skew the impact factor journals can take overt steps to game the system For example in 2007 the specialist journal Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica with an impact factor of 0 66 published an editorial that cited all its articles from 2005 to 2006 in a protest against the absurd scientific situation in some countries related to use of the impact factor 43 The large number of citations meant that the impact factor for that journal increased to 1 44 As a result of the increase the journal was not included in the 2008 and 2009 Journal Citation Reports 44 Coercive citation is a practice in which an editor forces an author to add extraneous citations to an article before the journal will agree to publish it in order to inflate the journal s impact factor 45 A survey published in 2012 indicates that coercive citation has been experienced by one in five researchers working in economics sociology psychology and multiple business disciplines and it is more common in business and in journals with a lower impact factor 46 Editors of leading business journals banded together to disavow the practice 47 However cases of coercive citation have occasionally been reported for other disciplines 48 Assumed correlation between impact factor and quality Edit The journal impact factor was originally designed by Eugene Garfield as a metric to help librarians make decisions about which journals were worth indexing as the JIF aggregates the number of citations to articles published in each journal Since then the JIF has become associated as a mark of journal quality and gained widespread use for evaluation of research and researchers instead even at the institutional level It thus has significant impact on steering research practices and behaviours 49 50 51 By 2010 national and international research funding institutions were already starting to point out that numerical indicators such as the JIF should not be considered as a measure of quality note 1 In fact research was indicating that the JIF is a highly manipulated metric 52 53 54 and the justification for its continued widespread use beyond its original narrow purpose seems due to its simplicity easily calculable and comparable number rather than any actual relationship to research quality 55 56 57 Empirical evidence shows that the misuse of the JIF and journal ranking metrics in general has a number of negative consequences for the scholarly communication system These include gaps between the reach of a journal and the quality of its individual papers 25 and insufficient coverage of social sciences and humanities as well as research outputs from across Latin America Africa and South East Asia citation needed Additional drawbacks include the marginalization of research in vernacular languages and on locally relevant topics and inducement to unethical authorship and citation practices More generally the impact factors fosters a reputation economy where scientific success is based on publishing in prestigious journals ahead of actual research qualities such as rigorous methods replicability and social impact Using journal prestige and the JIF to cultivate a competition regime in academia has been shown to have deleterious effects on research quality 58 A number of regional and international initiatives are now providing and suggesting alternative research assessment systems including key documents such as the Leiden Manifesto note 2 and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment DORA Plan S calls for a broader adoption and implementation of such initiatives alongside fundamental changes in the scholarly communication system note 3 As appropriate measures of quality for authors and research concepts of research excellence should be remodelled around transparent workflows and accessible research results 59 60 61 JIFs are still regularly used to evaluate research in many countries which is a problem since a number of issues remain around the opacity of the metric and the fact that it is often negotiated by publishers 62 63 19 Negotiated values Edit Results of an impact factor can change dramatically depending on which items are considered as citable and therefore included in the denominator 64 One notorious example of this occurred in 1988 when it was decided that meeting abstracts published in FASEB Journal would no longer be included in the denominator The journal s impact factor jumped from 0 24 in 1988 to 18 3 in 1989 65 Publishers routinely discuss with Clarivate how to improve the accuracy of their journals impact factor and therefore get higher scores 40 25 Such discussions routinely produce negotiated values which result in dramatic changes in the observed scores for dozens of journals sometimes after unrelated events like the purchase by one of the larger publishers 66 Distribution skewness Edit Journal impact factors are influenced heavily by a small number of highly cited papers In general most papers published in 2013 14 received many fewer citations than indicated by the impact factor Two journals Nature blue PLOS ONE orange are shown to represent a highly cited and less cited journal respectively Note that the high citation impact of Nature is derived from relatively few highly cited papers Modified after Callaway 2016 67 Because citation counts have highly skewed distributions 24 the mean number of citations is potentially misleading if used to gauge the typical impact of articles in the journal rather than the overall impact of the journal itself 68 For example about 90 of Nature s 2004 impact factor was based on only a quarter of its publications Thus the actual number of citations for a single article in the journal is in most cases much lower than the mean number of citations across articles 69 Furthermore the strength of the relationship between impact factors of journals and the citation rates of the papers therein has been steadily decreasing since articles began to be available digitally 70 The effect of outliers can be seen in the case of the article A short history of SHELX which included this sentence This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of the open source SHELX programs and the Bruker AXS version SHELXTL are employed in the course of a crystal structure determination This article received more than 6 600 citations As a consequence the impact factor of the journal Acta Crystallographica Section A rose from 2 051 in 2008 to 49 926 in 2009 more than Nature at 31 434 and Science at 28 103 71 The second most cited article in Acta Crystallographica Section A in 2008 only had 28 citations 72 Critics of the JIF state that use of the arithmetic mean in its calculation is problematic because the pattern of citation distribution is skewed 73 and citation distributions metrics have been proposed as an alternative to impact factors 74 75 76 However there have also been pleas to take a more nuanced approach to judging the distribution skewness of the impact factor Waltman and Traag who in their 2021 paper ran numerous simulations and concluded that statistical objections against the use of the IF at the level of individual articles are not convincing and that the IF may be a more accurate indicator of the value of an article than the number of citations of the article 1 Lack of reproducibility Edit While the underlying mathematical model is publicly known the dataset which is used to calculate the JIF is not publicly available This prompted criticism Just as scientists would not accept the findings in a scientific paper without seeing the primary data so should they not rely on Thomson Scientific s impact factor which is based on hidden data 19 However a 2019 article demonstrated that with access to the data and careful cleaning the JIF can be reproduced although this required much labour to achieve 77 A 2020 research paper went further It indicated that by querying open access or partly open access databases like Google Scholar ResearchGate and Scopus it is possible to calculate approximate impact factors without the need to purchase Web of Science JCR 78 Broader negative impact on science Edit Just as the impact factor has attracted criticism for various immediate problems associated with its application so has there also been criticism that its application undermines the broader process of science Research has indicated that bibliometrics figures particularly the impact factor decrease the quality of peer review an article receiving 79 a reluctance to share data 21 decreasing quality of articles 80 and a reduced scope in terms of what they can research For many researchers the only research questions and projects that appear viable are those that can meet the demand of scoring well in terms of metric performance indicators and chiefly the journal impact factor 21 Furthermore the process of publication and science is slowed down authors automatically try and publish with the journals with the highest impact factor as editors and reviewers are tasked with reviewing papers that are not submitted to the most appropriate venues 77 Institutional responses to criticism of the impact factor EditGiven the growing criticism and its widespread usage as a means of research assessment organisations and institutions have begun to take steps to move away from the journal impact factor In November 2007 the European Association of Science Editors EASE issued an official statement recommending that journal impact factors are used only and cautiously for measuring and comparing the influence of entire journals but not for the assessment of single papers and certainly not for the assessment of researchers or research programmes 23 In July 2008 the International Council for Science Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science issued a statement on publication practices and indices and the role of peer review in research assessment suggesting many possible solutions e g considering a limit number of publications per year to be taken into consideration for each scientist or even penalising scientists for an excessive number of publications per year e g more than 20 81 In February 2010 the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft German Research Foundation published new guidelines to reduce the number of publications could submit when applying for funding The focus has not been on what research someone has done but rather how many papers have been published and where They noted that for decisions concerning performance based funding allocations postdoctoral qualifications appointments or reviewing funding proposals where increasing importance has been given to numerical indicators such as the h index and the impact factor 82 The UK s Research Assessment Exercise for 2014 also banned the journal impact factor 83 although evidence suggested that this ban was often ignored 84 In response to growing concerns over the inappropriate use of journal impact factors in evaluating scientific outputs and scientists themselves the American Society for Cell Biology together with a group of editors and publishers of scholarly journals created the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment DORA Released in May 2013 DORA has garnered support from thousands of individuals and hundreds of institutions 28 including in March 2015 the League of European Research Universities a consortium of 21 of the most renowned research universities in Europe 85 who have endorsed the document on the DORA website Publishers even those with high impact factors also recognised the flaws 86 Nature magazine criticised the over reliance of JIF pointing not just to its statistical but to negative effects on science The resulting pressures and disappointments are nothing but demoralizing and in badly run labs can encourage sloppy research that for example fails to test assumptions thoroughly or to take all the data into account before submitting big claims 87 Various publishers now use a mixture of metrics on their website the PLOS series of journals does not display the impact factor 88 Microsoft Academic took a similar view stating that h index EI SCI and journal impact factors are not shown because the research literature has provided abundant evidence that these metrics are at best a rough approximation of research impact and scholarly influence 89 In 2021 Utrecht University promised to abandon all quantitative bibliometrics including the impact factor The university stated that it has become a very sick model that goes beyond what is really relevant for science and putting science forward 90 91 This followed a 2018 decision by the main Dutch funding body for research NWO to remove all references to journal impact factors and the h index in all call texts and application forms 92 Utrecht s decision met with some resistance An open letter signed by over 150 Dutch academics argued that while imperfect the JIF is still useful and that omitting it will lead to randomness and a compromising of scientific quality 93 Closely related indices EditSome related metrics also calculated and published by the same organization include Cited half life the median age of the articles that were cited in Journal Citation Reports each year For example if a journal s half life in 2005 is 5 that means the citations from 2001 to 2005 are half of all the citations from that journal in 2005 and the other half of the citations precede 2001 94 Aggregate impact factor for a subject category it is calculated taking into account the number of citations to all journals in the subject category and the number of articles from all the journals in the subject category Immediacy index the number of citations the articles in a journal receive in a given year divided by the number of articles published Journal citation indicator JCI a JIF that adjusts for scientific field it is similar to Source Normalized Impact per Paper calculated based on the Scopus database 95 As with the impact factor there are some nuances to this for example Clarivate excludes certain article types such as news items correspondence and errata from the denominator 96 97 98 10 Other measures of scientific impact EditMain article Citation metrics Further information Scientometrics Additional journal level metrics are available from other organizations For example CiteScore is a metric for serial titles in Scopus launched in December 2016 by Elsevier 99 100 While these metrics apply only to journals there are also author level metrics such as the h index that apply to individual researchers In addition article level metrics measure impact at an article level instead of journal level Other more general alternative metrics or altmetrics that include article views downloads or mentions in social media offer a different perspective on research impact concentrating more on immediate social impact in and outside academia 61 101 Counterfeit impact factors EditFake impact factors or bogus impact factors are produced by certain companies or individuals 102 According to an article published in the Electronic Physician these include Global Impact Factor Citefactor and Universal Impact Factor 102 Jeffrey Beall maintained a list of such misleading metrics 103 104 Another deceitful practice is reporting alternative impact factors calculated as the average number of citations per article using citation indices other than JCR even if based on reputable sources such as Google Scholar e g Google based Journal Impact Factor 105 False impact factors are often used by predatory publishers 106 107 Consulting Journal Citation Reports master journal list can confirm if a publication is indexed by the Journal Citation Reports 108 The use of fake impact metrics is considered a red flag 109 See also Edit Science portalAuthor impact factor Citation impact Goodhart s law JournalologyNotes on alternatives Edit Quality Not Quantity DFG Adopts Rules to Counter the Flood of Publications in Research Press release Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft German Research Foundation 2010 DFG Press Release No 7 The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics 2015 Plan S implementation guidelines February 2019 References Edit a b Waltman L Traag VA 1 March 2021 Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles Statistically flawed or not F1000Research 9 366 doi 10 12688 f1000research 23418 2 PMC 7974631 PMID 33796272 Curry S February 2018 Let s move beyond the rhetoric it s time to change how we judge research Nature 554 7691 147 Bibcode 2018Natur 554 147C doi 10 1038 d41586 018 01642 w PMID 29420505 a b Hutchins BI Yuan X Anderson JM Santangelo GM September 2016 Relative Citation Ratio RCR A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level PLOS Biology 14 9 e1002541 doi 10 1371 journal pbio 1002541 PMC 5012559 PMID 27599104 Thomson Corporation acquired ISI Online July 1992 Archived from the original on 15 May 2013 Retrieved 26 February 2012 Acquisition of the Thomson Reuters Intellectual Property and Science Business by Onex and Baring Asia Completed Journal Citation Reports Web of Science Group Retrieved 14 September 2019 Web of Science Group Web of Science Group 5 August 2019 Retrieved 28 July 2020 a b The Clarivate Impact Factor Clarivate 20 June 1994 Nature 2017 Journal Citation Reports Web of Science Science ed Thomson Reuters 2018 a b McVeigh ME Mann SJ September 2009 The journal impact factor denominator defining citable counted items JAMA 302 10 1107 9 doi 10 1001 jama 2009 1301 PMID 19738096 Hubbard SC McVeigh ME 2011 Casting a wide net The Journal Impact Factor numerator Learned Publishing 24 2 133 137 doi 10 1087 20110208 S2CID 20172401 RSC Advances receives its first partial impact factor RSC Advances Blog 24 June 2013 Retrieved 16 July 2018 Konforti Boyana 30 July 2014 Our first partial impact factor and our continuing full story Cell Mentor JCR with Eigenfactor Archived from the original on 2 January 2010 Retrieved 26 August 2009 ISI 5 Year Impact Factor APA Retrieved 12 November 2017 Hoeffel C December 1998 Journal impact factors Allergy 53 12 1225 doi 10 1111 j 1398 9995 1998 tb03848 x PMID 9930604 S2CID 5773127 Garfield E January 2006 The history and meaning of the journal impact factor JAMA 295 1 90 3 Bibcode 2006JAMA 295 90G doi 10 1001 jama 295 1 90 PMID 16391221 S2CID 31183037 Garfield E June 1998 The impact factor and its proper application Der Unfallchirurg 101 6 413 4 PMID 9677838 a b c d Rossner M Van Epps H Hill E December 2007 Show me the data The Journal of Cell Biology 179 6 1091 2 doi 10 1083 jcb 200711140 PMC 2140038 PMID 18086910 McKiernan EC Schimanski LA Munoz Nieves C Matthias L Niles MT Alperin JP July 2019 Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review promotion and tenure evaluations eLife 8 doi 10 7554 eLife 47338 PMC 6668985 PMID 31364991 a b c Muller Ruth de Rijcke Sarah 1 July 2017 Thinking with indicators Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences Research Evaluation 26 3 157 168 doi 10 1093 reseval rvx023 ISSN 0958 2029 Time to remodel the journal impact factor Nature 535 7613 466 July 2016 Bibcode 2016Natur 535 466 doi 10 1038 535466a PMID 27466089 a b EASE Statement on Inappropriate Use of Impact Factors European Association of Science Editors Retrieved 23 July 2012 a b Callaway E July 2016 Beat it impact factor Publishing elite turns against controversial metric Nature 535 7611 210 1 Bibcode 2016Natur 535 210C doi 10 1038 nature 2016 20224 PMID 27411614 a b c Brembs B Button K Munafo M 2013 Deep impact unintended consequences of journal rank Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7 291 arXiv 1301 3748 Bibcode 2013arXiv1301 3748B doi 10 3389 fnhum 2013 00291 PMC 3690355 PMID 23805088 van Wesel M February 2016 Evaluation by Citation Trends in Publication Behavior Evaluation Criteria and the Strive for High Impact Publications Science and Engineering Ethics 22 1 199 225 doi 10 1007 s11948 015 9638 0 PMC 4750571 PMID 25742806 Kansa E 27 January 2014 It s the Neoliberalism Stupid Why instrumentalist arguments for Open Access Open Data and Open Science are not enough LSE Impact Blog Retrieved 16 July 2018 a b Cabello F Rascon MT 2015 The Index and the Moon Mortgaging Scientific Evaluation International Journal of Communication 9 1880 1887 Bornmann L Daniel HD 2008 What do citation counts measure A review of studies on citing behavior Journal of Documentation 64 1 45 80 doi 10 1108 00220410810844150 hdl 11858 00 001M 0000 0013 7A94 3 Anauati MV Galiani S Galvez RM 11 November 2014 Quantifying the Life Cycle of Scholarly Articles Across Fields of Economic Research SSRN 2523078 van Nierop E 2009 Why Do Statistics Journals Have Low Impact Factors Statistica Neerlandica 63 1 52 62 doi 10 1111 j 1467 9574 2008 00408 x S2CID 247704905 Bohannon J 2016 Hate journal impact factors New study gives you one more reason Science doi 10 1126 science aag0643 House of Commons Science and Technology Tenth Report 7 July 2004 Retrieved 28 July 2008 Seglen PO February 1997 Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research BMJ 314 7079 498 502 doi 10 1136 bmj 314 7079 497 PMC 2126010 PMID 9056804 EASE Statement on Inappropriate Use of Impact Factors European Association of Science Editors November 2007 Retrieved 13 April 2013 Wilsdon J Allen L Belfiore E Campbell P Curry S Hill S et al July 2015 The Metric Tide Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management Report doi 10 13140 RG 2 1 4929 1363 Monastersky R 14 October 2005 The Number That s Devouring Science The Chronicle of Higher Education Arnold DN Fowler KK 2011 Nefarious Numbers Notices of the American Mathematical Society 58 3 434 437 arXiv 1010 0278 Bibcode 2010arXiv1010 0278A Valderrama P Escabias M Valderrama MJ Jimenez Contreras E Baca P March 2020 Influential variables in the Journal Impact Factor of Dentistry journals Heliyon 6 3 e03575 doi 10 1016 j heliyon 2020 e03575 PMC 7082530 PMID 32211547 a b PLoS Medicine Editors June 2006 The impact factor game It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature PLOS Medicine 3 6 e291 doi 10 1371 journal pmed 0030291 PMC 1475651 PMID 16749869 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a author has generic name help Agrawal AA April 2005 Corruption of journal Impact Factors PDF Trends in Ecology amp Evolution 20 4 157 doi 10 1016 j tree 2005 02 002 PMID 16701362 Archived from the original PDF on 19 June 2010 Fassoulaki A Papilas K Paraskeva A Patris K August 2002 Impact factor bias and proposed adjustments for its determination Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 46 7 902 5 doi 10 1034 j 1399 6576 2002 460723 x PMID 12139549 S2CID 20805963 Schutte HK Svec JG 2007 Reaction of Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica on the current trend of impact factor measures Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 59 6 281 5 doi 10 1159 000108334 PMID 17965570 S2CID 7595296 Journal Citation Reports Notices Archived from the original on 15 May 2010 Retrieved 24 September 2009 McLeod S 25 September 2020 Should authors cite sources suggested by peer reviewers Six antidotes for handling potentially coercive reviewer citation suggestions Learned Publishing 34 2 282 286 doi 10 1002 leap 1335 ISSN 0953 1513 S2CID 225004022 Wilhite AW Fong EA February 2012 Scientific publications Coercive citation in academic publishing Science 335 6068 542 3 Bibcode 2012Sci 335 542W doi 10 1126 science 1212540 PMID 22301307 S2CID 30073305 Lynch JG March 2012 Business journals combat coercive citation Science 335 6073 1169 1 1169 Bibcode 2012Sci 335 1169L doi 10 1126 science 335 6073 1169 a PMID 22403371 Dyer C February 1997 Widow can be inseminated with husband s sperm BMJ 314 7079 461 doi 10 1136 bmj 314 7079 461d PMC 2125988 PMID 9056791 Gargouri Y Hajjem C Lariviere V Gingras Y Carr L Brody T Harnad S 2018 The Journal Impact Factor A Brief History Critique and Discussion of Adverse Effects arXiv 1801 08992 cs DL Curry S February 2018 Let s move beyond the rhetoric it s time to change how we judge research Nature 554 7691 147 Bibcode 2018Natur 554 147C doi 10 1038 d41586 018 01642 w PMID 29420505 Al Hoorie A Vitta JP 2019 The seven sins of L2 research A review of 30 journals statistical quality and their CiteScore SJR SNIP JCR Impact Factors Language Teaching Research 23 6 727 744 doi 10 1177 1362168818767191 S2CID 149857357 Falagas ME Alexiou VG 2008 The top ten in journal impact factor manipulation Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 56 4 223 6 doi 10 1007 s00005 008 0024 5 PMID 18661263 S2CID 7482376 Tort AB Targino ZH Amaral OB 2012 Rising publication delays inflate journal impact factors PLOS ONE 7 12 e53374 Bibcode 2012PLoSO 753374T doi 10 1371 journal pone 0053374 PMC 3534064 PMID 23300920 Fong EA Wilhite AW 2017 Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research PLOS ONE 12 12 e0187394 Bibcode 2017PLoSO 1287394F doi 10 1371 journal pone 0187394 PMC 5718422 PMID 29211744 Adler R Ewing J Taylor P 2009 Citation Statistics A Report from the International Mathematical Union IMU in Cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics ICIAM and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics IMS PDF Statistical Science 24 1 1 14 arXiv 0910 3529 doi 10 1214 09 STS285 ISSN 0883 4237 JSTOR 20697661 S2CID 219477 Brembs B 2018 Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12 37 doi 10 3389 fnhum 2018 00037 PMC 5826185 PMID 29515380 Gargouri Y Hajjem C Lariviere V Gingras Y Carr L Brody T Harnad S 2009 The Impact Factor s Matthew Effect A Natural Experiment in Bibliometrics arXiv 0908 3177 physics soc ph Vessuri H Guedon JC Cetto AM 2014 Excellence or Quality Impact of the Current Competition Regime on Science and Scientific Publishing in Latin America and Its Implications for Development PDF Current Sociology 62 5 647 665 doi 10 1177 0011392113512839 S2CID 25166127 Moore S Neylon C Eve MP O Donnell DP Pattinson D 2017 Excellence R Us University Research and the Fetishisation of Excellence Palgrave Communications 3 doi 10 1057 palcomms 2016 105 Owen R Macnaghten P Stilgoe J 2012 Responsible Research and Innovation From Science in Society to Science for Society with Society Science and Public Policy 39 6 751 760 doi 10 1093 scipol scs093 a b Hicks D Wouters P Waltman L de Rijcke S Rafols I April 2015 Bibliometrics The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics Nature 520 7548 429 31 Bibcode 2015Natur 520 429H doi 10 1038 520429a PMID 25903611 Open Access and the Divide between Mainstream and peripheral Como Gerir e Qualificar Revistas Cientificas 1 25 Alperin JP Munoz Nieves C Schimanski LA Fischman GE Niles MT McKiernan EC February 2019 How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review promotion and tenure documents eLife 8 doi 10 7554 eLife 42254 PMC 6391063 PMID 30747708 Adam D February 2002 The counting house Nature 415 6873 726 9 doi 10 1038 415726a PMID 11845174 S2CID 4407346 Baylis M Gravenor M Kao R September 1999 Sprucing up one s impact factor Nature 401 6751 322 doi 10 1038 43768 c1 PMID 10517624 S2CID 4356889 Brembs B 8 January 2016 Just how widespread are impact factor negotiations Retrieved 14 July 2020 Callaway E July 2016 Beat it impact factor Publishing elite turns against controversial metric Nature 535 7611 210 1 Bibcode 2016Natur 535 210C doi 10 1038 nature 2016 20224 PMID 27411614 Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research 12 June 2008 Citation Statistics PDF International Mathematical Union Not so deep impact Nature 435 7045 1003 4 June 2005 doi 10 1038 4351003b PMID 15973362 Lozano GA Lariviere V Gingras Y 2012 The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers citations in the digital age Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 11 2140 2145 arXiv 1205 4328 Bibcode 2012arXiv1205 4328L doi 10 1002 asi 22731 S2CID 492922 Grant B 21 June 2010 New impact factors yield surprises The Scientist Retrieved 31 March 2011 McVeigh M 17 June 2010 What does it mean to be 2 in Impact Archived from the original on 12 October 2017 Retrieved 16 July 2018 Lariviere V Kiermer V MacCallum CJ McNutt M Patterson M Pulverer B et al 2016 A Simple Proposal for the Publication of Journal Citation Distributions bioRxiv 10 1101 062109 Kiermer V 2016 Measuring Up Impact Factors Do Not Reflect Article Citation Rates PLOS Ditching Impact Factors for Deeper Data The Scientist Retrieved 29 July 2016 Corneliussen S 2016 Bad summer for the journal impact factor Physics Today doi 10 1063 PT 5 8183 a b Lariviere V Sugimoto CR 2019 Glanzel W Moed HF Schmoch U Thelwall M eds The Journal Impact Factor A Brief History Critique and Discussion of Adverse Effects Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators Springer Handbooks Cham Springer International Publishing pp 3 24 arXiv 1801 08992 doi 10 1007 978 3 030 02511 3 1 ISBN 978 3 030 02510 6 S2CID 3677889 Templ M 19 June 2020 Modeling and Prediction of the Impact Factor of Journals Using Open Access Databases With an Application to the Austrian Journal of Statistics Austrian Journal of Statistics 49 5 35 58 doi 10 17713 ajs v49i5 1186 ISSN 1026 597X S2CID 225704065 Stephan Paula Veugelers Reinhilde Wang Jian April 2017 Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics Nature 544 7651 411 412 Bibcode 2017Natur 544 411S doi 10 1038 544411a ISSN 0028 0836 PMID 28447652 Informing Research Choices Indicators and Judgment Retrieved 16 August 2021 International Council for Science statement Icsu org 2 May 2014 Retrieved 18 May 2014 Quality not Quantity DFG Adopts Rules to Counter the Flood of Publications in Research Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 23 February 2010 Retrieved 16 July 2018 Departmental H Index is a more transparent fair and cost effective method for distributing funding to universities Impact of Social Sciences 8 February 2013 Retrieved 14 August 2021 Business as usual in judging the worth of a researcher The Guardian 30 November 2012 Retrieved 14 August 2021 Not everything that can be counted counts League of European Research Universities 16 March 2015 Archived from the original on 1 December 2017 Callaway Ewen July 2016 Beat it impact factor Publishing elite turns against controversial metric Nature 535 7611 210 211 Bibcode 2016Natur 535 210C doi 10 1038 nature 2016 20224 ISSN 0028 0836 PMID 27411614 S2CID 4452614 Time to remodel the journal impact factor Nature 535 7613 466 July 2016 Bibcode 2016Natur 535 466 doi 10 1038 535466a ISSN 0028 0836 PMID 27466089 S2CID 4463743 PLOS ONE accelerating the publication of peer reviewed science journals plos org Retrieved 14 August 2021 Microsoft Academic academic microsoft com Archived from the original on 5 January 2017 Retrieved 15 December 2020 Woolston C July 2021 Impact factor abandoned by Dutch university in hiring and promotion decisions Nature 595 7867 462 Bibcode 2021Natur 595 462W doi 10 1038 d41586 021 01759 5 PMID 34172959 S2CID 235647170 Recognition and rewards Universiteit Utrecht www uu nl Retrieved 19 July 2021 DORA NWO www nwo nl Retrieved 21 July 2021 Scientists at odds on Utrecht University reforms to hiring and promotion criteria www natureindex com Retrieved 14 August 2021 Impact Factor Immediacy Index Cited Half life Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Archived from the original on 23 May 2008 Retrieved 30 October 2016 Journal impact factor gets a sibling that adjusts for scientific field Science AAAS 30 June 2021 Retrieved 30 June 2021 Bibliometrics journal measures Elsevier Archived from the original on 18 August 2012 Retrieved 9 July 2012 A measure of the speed at which content in a particular journal is picked up and referred to Glossary of Thomson Scientific Terminology Thomson Reuters Retrieved 9 July 2012 Journal Citation Reports Contents Immediacy Index online Clarivate Analytics Retrieved 9 July 2012 The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited The aggregate Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a subject category are cited Metrics Features Scopus Solutions www elsevier com Retrieved 9 December 2016 Van Noorden R December 2016 Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival Nature 540 7633 325 326 Bibcode 2016Natur 540 325V doi 10 1038 nature 2016 21131 PMID 27974784 Priem J Taraborelli D Groth P Neylon C 26 October 2010 Altmetrics A manifesto a b Jalalian M 2015 The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them Electronic Physician 7 2 1069 72 doi 10 14661 2015 1069 1072 PMC 4477767 PMID 26120416 Misleading Metrics Scholarly Open Access Archived from the original on 11 January 2017 Misleading Metrics Beall s List Xia J Smith MP 2018 Alternative journal impact factors in open access publishing Learned Publishing 31 4 403 411 doi 10 1002 leap 1200 ISSN 0953 1513 Beall J Scholarly Open Access Fake impact factors Archived from the original on 21 March 2016 Discussion document Predatory Publishing Report Committee on Publication Ethics 1 November 2019 doi 10 24318 cope 2019 3 6 Master Journal List Web of Science Group Clarivate Ebrahimzadeh MH April 2016 Validated Measures of Publication Quality Guide for Novice Researchers to Choose an Appropriate Journal for Paper Submission The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery 4 2 94 6 PMC 4852052 PMID 27200383 Further reading Edit Does the Impact Factor Impact Decisions on Where to Publish APS News American Physical Society 15 4 April 2006 Retrieved 1 July 2010 Garfield E October 1999 Journal impact factor a brief review CMAJ 161 8 979 80 PMC 1230709 PMID 10551195 Gilbert N November 2010 UK science will be judged on impact Nature 468 7322 357 Bibcode 2010Natur 468 357G doi 10 1038 468357a PMID 21085146 Groesser SN 2012 Dynamics of Journal Impact Factors PDF Systems Research and Behavioral Science 29 6 624 644 doi 10 1002 sres 2142 Lariviere V Sugimoto CR 2018 The Journal Impact Factor A brief history critique and discussion of adverse effects arXiv 1801 08992 cs DL Marcus A Oransky I 22 May 2015 What s Behind Big Science Frauds Opinion The New York Times Journal amp Country Rank Rankings by Scopus and Scimago Lab Scopus and Scimago Lab Scimago Retrieved 23 October 2018 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Impact factor amp oldid 1126999234, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.