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
  • [31] The integrated impact indicator revisited(I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor
    Leydesdorff, Loet
    Bornmann, Lutz
    Adams, Jonathan
    SCIENTOMETRICS, 2019, 119 (03) : 1669 - 1694
  • [32] The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor
    Loet Leydesdorff
    Lutz Bornmann
    Jonathan Adams
    Scientometrics, 2019, 119 : 1669 - 1694
  • [33] Promotion and tenure for medical physicists should be based on article specific measures and not on journal impact factor
    Hedrick, Samantha
    Yang, Jinzhong
    Rong, Yi
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2024, 25 (12):
  • [34] Development of an alternative to Journal Impact Factor using a broader range of article-level metrics
    Rees, Tomas
    Desai, Shailesh
    D'Angelo, Gina
    Hartman, Eileen
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2023, 39 : S46 - S47
  • [35] Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal “Instructions to Authors” in 2014
    Larissa Shamseer
    Sally Hopewell
    Douglas G. Altman
    David Moher
    Kenneth F. Schulz
    Trials, 17
  • [36] Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal "Instructions to Authors" in 2014
    Shamseer, Larissa
    Hopewell, Sally
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Moher, David
    Schulz, Kenneth F.
    TRIALS, 2016, 17
  • [37] The pros and cons of bifactor models for testing dimensionality and psychopathological models: A commentary on the manuscript "A systematic review and meta-analytic factor analysis of the depression anxiety stress scales"
    Luciano, Juan V.
    Sanabria-Mazo, Juan P.
    Feliu-Soler, Albert
    Forero, Carlos G.
    CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY-SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 2020, 27 (04)
  • [38] Correlation Between Perception-Based Journal Rankings and the Journal Impact Factor (JIF): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Mahmood, Khalid
    SERIALS REVIEW, 2017, 43 (02) : 120 - 129
  • [39] Impact of home care versus alternative locations of care on elder health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews
    Laura Boland
    France Légaré
    Maria Margarita Becerra Perez
    Matthew Menear
    Mirjam Marjolein Garvelink
    Daniel I. McIsaac
    Geneviève Painchaud Guérard
    Julie Emond
    Nathalie Brière
    Dawn Stacey
    BMC Geriatrics, 17
  • [40] Impact of home care versus alternative locations of care on elder health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews
    Boland, Laura
    Legare, France
    Perez, Maria Margarita Becerra
    Menear, Matthew
    Garvelink, Mirjam Marjolein
    McIsaac, Daniel I.
    Guerard, Genevieve Painchaud
    Emond, Julie
    Briere, Nathalie
    Stacey, Dawn
    BMC GERIATRICS, 2017, 17