Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures

被引:0
|
作者
Mech, Eugene [1 ,2 ]
Ahmed, Muhammad Muneeb [2 ,3 ]
Tamale, Edward [2 ]
Holek, Matthew [2 ]
Li, Guowei [2 ,4 ]
Thabane, Lehana [2 ,5 ,6 ,7 ,8 ,9 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Biochem & Biomed Sci, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact HEI, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[3] McMaster Univ, Michael G DeGroote Sch Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[4] Guangdong Second Prov Gen Hosp, Ctr Clin Epidemiol & Methodol CCEM, Guangzhou, Peoples R China
[5] St Josephs Healthcare, Res Inst, Biostat Unit, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[6] McMaster Univ, Dept Anesthesia, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[7] McMaster Univ, Dept Pediat, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[8] McMaster Univ, Sch Nursing, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[9] McMaster Univ, Sch Rehabil Sci, Hamilton, ON, Canada
关键词
Journal Impact Factor; Bibliometrics; Alternative metrics; Citations and impact; SCIENTIFIC IMPACT; CITATION ANALYSIS; BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS; H-INDEX; OPHTHALMOLOGY; PERFORMANCE; LIMITATIONS; RANKING; QUALITY; METRICS;
D O I
10.1590/1678-9199-jvatitd-2019-0082
中图分类号
R99 [毒物学(毒理学)];
学科分类号
100405 ;
摘要
Background: Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF. Methods: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency. Results: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF. Conclusion: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The immediacy index and the journal impact factor: Two highly correlated derived measures
    Yue, WP
    Wilson, CS
    Rousseau, R
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION AND LIBRARY SCIENCE-REVUE CANADIENNE DES SCIENCES DE L INFORMATION ET DE BIBLIOTHECONOMIE, 2004, 28 (01): : 33 - 48
  • [22] Evaluating research and researchers by the journal impact factor: Is it better than coin flipping?
    Brito, Ricardo
    Rodriguez-Navarro, Alonso
    JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 2019, 13 (01) : 314 - 324
  • [23] Measuring the excellence contribution at the journal level: an alternative to Garfield’s impact factor
    Juan Gorraiz
    Ursula Ulrych
    Wolfgang Glänzel
    Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado
    Daniel Torres-Salinas
    Scientometrics, 2022, 127 : 7229 - 7251
  • [24] Measuring the excellence contribution at the journal level: An alternative to Garfield's impact factor
    Gorraiz, Juan
    Ulrych, Ursula
    Glanzel, Wolfgang
    Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao
    Torres-Salinas, Daniel
    18TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENTOMETRICS & INFORMETRICS (ISSI2021), 2021, : 465 - 476
  • [25] Measuring the excellence contribution at the journal level: an alternative to Garfield's impact factor
    Gorraiz, Juan
    Ulrych, Ursula
    Glanzel, Wolfgang
    Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao
    Torres-Salinas, Daniel
    SCIENTOMETRICS, 2022, 127 (12) : 7229 - 7251
  • [26] The Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) and the Journal Impact Factor: A Non-Parametric Alternative
    Leydesdorff, Loet
    Bornmann, Lutz
    Adams, Jonathan
    17TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENTOMETRICS & INFORMETRICS (ISSI2019), VOL I, 2019, : 23 - 34
  • [27] An investigation into diabetes researcher's perceptions of the Journal Impact Factor - reconsidering evaluating research
    Sonderstrup-Andersen, Eva M.
    Sonderstrup-Andersen, Hans H. K.
    SCIENTOMETRICS, 2008, 76 (02) : 391 - 406
  • [28] An investigation into diabetes researcher’s perceptions of the Journal Impact Factor — reconsidering evaluating research
    Eva M. Sønderstrup-Andersen
    Hans H. K. Sønderstrup-Andersen
    Scientometrics, 2008, 76 : 391 - 406
  • [29] Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'
    Sally Hopewell
    Douglas G Altman
    David Moher
    Kenneth F Schulz
    Trials, 9
  • [30] Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'
    Hopewell, Sally
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Moher, David
    Schulz, Kenneth F.
    TRIALS, 2008, 9 (1)