[Evaluation of scientific publication: a recommendation (not only) for general medicine]

A Proposal (not only) for General Practice/Family Medicine: Medical faculties and other institutions increase their pressure on scientific societies and colleges to present and set standards to evaluate publications from their discipline. After discussing the quality of different literature and publication indices the authors take a critical look at the impact factor which arouses much controversy among medical faculties. The evaluation standard presented for general practice comprises three categories of quality to which (A) Top Journals, (B) Standard Journals and (C) other Journals (but also books and book contributions) are allocated. Assessment criteria are mainly based on indexation (Index Medicus) and independent peer review. Within that system original papers are valued higher than reviews and editorials or comments. The impact factor is not considered to be helpful for judgement. The authors are convinced that any numerical point system would not be likely to lead to a reasonable assessment of an individual publication. Furthermore, there could be an increased risk that members of committees would prefer the point system for their judgement rather than to read papers in detail. The suggested standard could serve as an aid for referees from disciplines other than general practice. However, their expert decision regarding the quality of publications could not be replaced by even the most sophisticated valuation system.