Abstract
Alternative metrics for measuring the quality of articles and journals.
Highlights
I’ve fretted about this problem since 1991 when I became the editor of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group responsible for about another 15 journals. In those days academics in Britain and editors of specialist journals were not familiar with impact factors, but once they began to be used to measuring the performance of academic departments—and, most important of all, allocating money to them— academics began to be obsessed by impact factors
Editors too became obsessed and would weep when their journal impact factors fell by one decimal point
The New England Journal of Medicine had an impact factor in 2012 of 53.298 but most journals have impact factors under 1
Summary
I’ve fretted about this problem since 1991 when I became the editor of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group responsible for about another 15 journals. The impact factor of a journal for, say, 2012 (and it is measured annually) is citations in 2012 to articles published in 2010-2011 divided by number of “citable” articles published in 2010-2011. When it comes to journals, the impact factor has some validity because the articles in the journal being highly cited must be some sort of measure of impact.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.