Related Experiment Videos
Sense and nonsense about the impact factor
1Department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. t.opthof@amc.uva.nl
Cardiovascular Research
|January 1, 1997
Summary
The journal impact factor, a measure of citation rates, is often misused to assess individual scientists and departments, despite lacking a scientific basis for such evaluations. This study demonstrates the limitations of using impact factors beyond journal comparisons.
Area of Science:
- Bibliometrics
- Scholarly Communication
- Scientific Publishing
Background:
- The journal impact factor (JIF) has been published since 1961 by the Institute for Scientific Information.
- It is calculated based on the citation frequency of papers within a scientific journal.
- A higher JIF is generally perceived to indicate higher scientific esteem for the journal.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically evaluate the application of the journal impact factor.
- To assess the validity of using JIF for evaluating individual papers, scientists, and departments.
- To demonstrate the lack of scientific basis for these extended applications.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of the methodology and original intent of the journal impact factor.
- Review of literature concerning the use of bibliometric indicators in research assessment.
- Empirical demonstration of the limitations of JIF when applied to individual research entities.
Main Results:
- The journal impact factor is primarily intended for comparing journals, not for assessing individual research quality.
- Misapplication of JIF for evaluating scientists and departments lacks a sound scientific foundation.
- Citation patterns at the individual level do not reliably correlate with journal-level impact factors.
Conclusions:
- The journal impact factor should be used cautiously and primarily for its intended purpose of journal comparison.
- Extending the use of JIF to assess individual scientists, papers, or departments is scientifically unfounded.
- Alternative bibliometric and qualitative methods are necessary for robust research assessment.