[From a case of plagiarism to rethinking the use of impact factor]

In Italy the impact factor (IF) is used to evaluate individual or collective scientific research (Universities, Departments and Research groups); such Universities' evaluation is also used to assign funds by Government. The IF is an indicator of a journal's prestige. It varies a lot according to: 1. type of discipline and thematic area which the journal cover; 2. authors' number; 3. weight given to citations: 4. self-citations. On these data it seems to us that IF, normalized also, is little profit to evaluate scientific quality of a work and/or researchers' activity. Additionally, such use of the IF: 1. has made it difficult to use the same Science Citation Index, since unjustified citations and self-citations are augmented; 2. can compromise the research and increase the cases of scientific misconduct, since researchers are inclined to publish also in absence of meaningful scientific results, only to augment own IF. Quality of a research depends on intrinsic factors (i.e. originality, methodology, etc.), that are perceivable only by experts (peer-reviewers), and it doesn't depend on external factors as the place of publication or the citation success.

scientific literature has to reacquire its role: to introduce best evidence for scientific research avoiding contaminations caused by economic affairs and competition consequent IF. To such end the evaluation from peer-reviewers is a more reliable way, even though not perfect.