Use Of Journal Impact Factor Research Articles

Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause.

Although publication in scholarly peer-reviewed journals remains the gold standard for communication of findings in the life sciences, the gold has been debased in the digital age by various impurities, including (a) reviewer fatigue, (b) fraud, paper mills, and the perils of artificial intelligence, (c) predatory journals, (d) the ongoing use of journal impact factor as a proxy for individual article quality, and (e) salami-slicing and other unethical practices. In this article, I present a detailed overview of these problems, as well as solutions proposed and implemented to counter them. Finally, I suggest that these are all symptomatic of a wider problem, namely the culture of 'publish or perish' and ongoing issues with how researcher performance is evaluated for grant, hiring, and promotion decisions. Only by working towards a global shift in the way scientists view the purpose of publication can we finally remove the impurities and refine the gold.

Journal impact factors - The good, the bad, and the ugly

This paper provides an overview of the concepts of citations and journal impact factors, and the implications of these metrics for the Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (JSAIMM). Two key research literature databases publish journal impact factors; namely, Web of Science and Scopus. Different equations are used to calculate journal impact factors and care should be exercised when comparing different journals. The JSAIMM has a low impact factor compared with some of the more prestigious journals. It nevertheless compares well with journals serving other mining sectors, such as the Canadian CIM Journal. The problems associated with journal impact factors are discussed. These include questionable editorial practices, the negative impact of this concept on good research, and the problem of a few highly cited papers distorting the journal impact factor. As a consequence, there is growing resistance to the use of journal impact factors to measure research excellence. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment is a global movement striving for an alternative assessment of research quality. As a recommendation, the Editorial Board of the JSAIMM should adopt a pragmatic approach and not alter good journal policies simply to increase the journal impact factor. The focus should remain on publishing excellent quality papers. Marketing of the Journal, the quality of the published papers, and its open access policy should be used to counter the perception that journals with high impact factors are better options in which to publish good research material.

INVITED ARTICLE: Building Journal Impact Factor Quartile into the Assessment of Academic Performance: A Case Study

This study aims to provide information about the Q Concept defined as the division of journal impact factors into quartiles based on given field categories so that the disadvantages resulting from the direct use of journal impact factors can be eliminated. While the number of "Original articles published in the Web of Science (WoS) database-indexed journals like SCI, SSCI and A&HCI" is an important indicator for research assessment in Turkey, neither the journal impact factors nor the Q Concept of these papers have been taken into account. Present study analyzes the scientific production of the Amasya University researchers in journals indexed in WoS database in the period 2014-2018 using the Q concept. The share of publications by Q category journals as well as the average citations received by the works from Amasya University were compared to the average situation in Turkey and other different countries in the world. Results indicate that the articles published by Amasya University researchers were mostly published in low impact factor journals (Q4 journals) (36.49%), in fact, only a small share of papers were published in high impact journals (14.32% in Q1 journals). The share of papers published in low impact journals by researchers from Amasya University is higher than the Turkish average and much higher than the scientific leading countries. The average citations received by papers published in Q1 journals was around six times higher than papers published in Q4 journals (8.92 vs. 1.56), thus papers published in Q1 journals received 30.02% citations despite only 14.32% of the papers was published in these journals. The share of papers published which were never cited in WoS was 27.48%, increasing from 9.68% in Q1 to almost half (48.10%) in Q4. The study concludes with some suggestions on how and where the Q Concept can be used.

Performance Feedback in Academic Journals: The Effect of Impact Factor on Manuscript Rejection Rates

Is there a direct relationship between Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and Manuscript Rejection Rates (MRR)? Given the traditional use of JIF as a performance indicator, we revisit this question from p...

Can research quality be measured quantitatively? On quality of scholarship, numerical research indicators and academic publishing - experiences from Norway

In this article I reflect on ways in which the neoliberal university and its administrative counterpart, new public management (NPM), affect academic publishing activity. One characteristic feature of NPM is the urge to use simple numerical indicators of research output as a tool to allocate funding and, in practice if not in theory, as a means of assessing research quality. This ranges from the use of journal impact factors (IF) and ranking of journals to publication points to determine what types of work in publishing is counted as meritorious for funding allocation. I argue that it is a fallacy to attempt to assess quality of scholarship through quantitative measures of publication output. I base my arguments on my experiences of editing a Norwegian geographical journal over a period of 16 years, along with my experiences as a scholar working for many years within the Norwegian university system.

Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data

Abstract Early in researchers’ careers, it is difficult to assess how good their work is or how important or influential the scholars will eventually be. Hence, funding agencies, academic departments, and others often use the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of where the authors have published to assess their work and provide resources and rewards for future work. The use of JIFs in this way has been heavily criticized, however. Using a large data set with many thousands of publication profiles of individual researchers, this study tests the ability of the JIF (in its normalized variant) to identify, at the beginning of their careers, those candidates who will be successful in the long run. Instead of bare JIFs and citation counts, the metrics used here are standardized according to Web of Science subject categories and publication years. The results of the study indicate that the JIF (in its normalized variant) is able to discriminate between researchers who published papers later on with a citation impact above or below average in a field and publication year – not only in the short term, but also in the long term. However, the low to medium effect sizes of the results also indicate that the JIF (in its normalized variant) should not be used as the sole criterion for identifying later success: other criteria, such as the novelty and significance of the specific research, academic distinctions, and the reputation of previous institutions, should also be considered.

ASM Journals Eliminate Impact Factor Information from Journal Websites.

Many scientists attempt to publish their work in a journal with the highest possible journal impact factor (IF). Despite widespread condemnation of the use of journal IFs to assess the significance of published work, these numbers continue to be widely misused in publication, hiring, funding, and promotion decisions (1, 2).

The journal Impact Factor and alternative metrics: A variety of bibliometric measures has been developed to supplant the Impact Factor to better assess the impact of individual research papers.

Journal impact factors (JIFs) have become a widely used tool to judge the quality of scientific journals and single publications. JIFs are calculated by the scientific division of Thomson Reuters and published annually in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). At first, the JCR's origin was guided by the needs of librarians who wanted to use a quantitative method to select journals for their holdings. Approximately 11,000 academic journals are currently listed in the JCR and the JIF has become one of the most important indicators in evaluative bibliometrics. Although this metric was never designed for evaluating papers or individuals, rather for evaluating journals as a whole, the availability of the JIFs has turned it into a common tool for evaluating research. It is especially common in Europe to use JIFs as a basis for making decision on research grants, hiring, and salaries. However, JIFs are not statistically representative of individual papers and correlate poorly with their actual citations. A study of six economics journals showed “that the best article in an issue of a good to medium‐quality journal routinely goes on to have much more citations impact than a ‘poor’ article published in an issue of a more prestigious journal” [1]. There is a growing unease within the scientific community, among journal publishers and within funding agencies, that the widespread misuse of JIFs to measure the quality of research—with profound impact on researchers' careers—is detrimental for science itself. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), initiated by the American Society for Cell Biology together with editors and publishers, calls for moving away from using JIFs to evaluate individual scientists or research groups and developing more reliable ways to measure the quality and impact of research. Various funding agencies have also begun to discourage the use of JIFs …

Does high impact factor successfully predict future citations? An analysis using Peirce’s measure

Journals are routinely evaluated by journal impact factors. However, more controversially, these same impact factors are often used to evaluate authors and groups as well. A more meaningful approach will be to use actual citation rates. Since in each journal there is a very highly skewed distribution of articles according to citation rates, there is little correlation between journal impact factor and actual citation rate of articles from individual scientists or research groups. Simply stated, journal impact factor does not successfully predict high citations in future. In this paper, we propose the use of Peirce's measure of predictive success (Peirce in Science 4(93):453---454, 1884) to see if the use of journal impact factors to predict high citation rates is acceptable or not. It is seen that this measure is independent of Pearson's correlation (Seglen 1997) and gives a more quantitative refinement of the Type I and Type II classification of Smith (Financ Manag 133---149, 2004). The measures are used to examine the portfolios of some active scientists. It is clear that the journal impact factor is not effective in predicting future citations of successful authors.

Auto-correlation of journal impact factor for consensus research reporting statements: a cohort study.

Background. The Journal Citation Reports journal impact factors (JIFs) are widely used to rank and evaluate journals, standing as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field. However, numerous criticisms have been made of use of a JIF to evaluate importance. This problem is exacerbated when the use of JIFs is extended to evaluate not only the journals, but the papers therein. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the relationship between the number of citations and journal IF for identical articles published simultaneously in multiple journals.Methods. Eligible articles were consensus research reporting statements listed on the EQUATOR Network website that were published simultaneously in three or more journals. The correlation between the citation count for each article and the median journal JIF over the published period, and between the citation count and number of article accesses was calculated for each reporting statement.Results. Nine research reporting statements were included in this analysis, representing 85 articles published across 58 journals in biomedicine. The number of citations was strongly correlated to the JIF for six of the nine reporting guidelines, with moderate correlation shown for the remaining three guidelines (median r = 0.66, 95% CI [0.45–0.90]). There was also a strong positive correlation between the number of citations and the number of article accesses (median r = 0.71, 95% CI [0.5–0.8]), although the number of data points for this analysis were limited. When adjusted for the individual reporting guidelines, each logarithm unit of JIF predicted a median increase of 0.8 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [−0.4–5.2]), and each logarithm unit of article accesses predicted a median increase of 0.1 logarithm units of citation counts (95% CI [−0.9–1.4]). This model explained 26% of the variance in citations (median adjusted r2 = 0.26, range 0.18–1.0).Conclusion. The impact factor of the journal in which a reporting statement was published was shown to influence the number of citations that statement will gather over time. Similarly, the number of article accesses also influenced the number of citations, although to a lesser extent than the impact factor. This demonstrates that citation counts are not purely a reflection of scientific merit and the impact factor is, in fact, auto-correlated.

Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices: Can any of them support academic promotion criteria?

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been used in assessing scientific journals. Other indices, h- and g-indices and Article Influence Score (AIS), have been developed to overcome some limitations of JIF. The aims of this study were, first, to critically assess the use of JIF and other parameters related to medical education research, and second, to discuss the capacity of these indices in assessing research productivity as well as their utility in academic promotion. The JIF of 16 medical education journals from 2000 to 2011 was examined together with the research evidence about JIF in assessing research outcomes of medical educators. The findings were discussed in light of the nonnumerical criteria often used in academic promotion. In conclusion, JIF was not designed for assessing individual or group research performance, and it seems unsuitable for such purposes. Although the g- and h-indices have demonstrated promising outcomes, further developments are needed for their use as academic promotion criteria. For top academic positions, additional criteria could include leadership, evidence of international impact, and contributions to the advancement of knowledge with regard to medical education.

Declaration criticizes use of journal impact factors

Declaration criticizes use of journal impact factors

Judicious Use of Journal Impact Factors and the Preservation of Our Fields of Study

This article comments on the judicious use of journal impact factors. It aims to preserve our fields of study within the context of increased scholarly scrutiny and the hierarchical structures inherent in academia. It concludes by recommending actions for JOPERD, other journals in the field, and the producers and evaluators of scholarship.

Impact factor: Imperfect but not yet replaceable

A recent critique of the use of journal impact factors (IF) by Vanclay noted imprecision and misuses of IF. However, the substantial alternatives he suggested offer no clear improvement over IF as a single measure of scholarly impact of a journal, leaving IF as not yet replaceable.

Publishing in the biomedical sciences: if it's broken, fix it!

During my short time as Editor-in-Chief of Biology Open ( BiO ), I've come to realise that publishing in the biomedical sciences is entering a period of profound change, the likes of which none of us has experienced before. The present system is under sustained attack and, although many scientists

Quantifying the value of knowledge exports from librarianship and information science research

Import–export studies use citation data to describe the exchange of knowledge and ideas between different disciplines. This paper reports the use of journal impact factors (IF) to quantify the extent to which an individual discipline, specifically librarianship and information science (LIS), is able to export knowledge to other disciplines. Web of Science searches were used to identify citations to 232 high quality LIS publications extracted from submissions to the UK’s 2008 Research Assessment Exercise. These publications resulted in 1061 knowledge exports to 444 unique, non-LIS citing journals, for which IFs were taken from the Journal Citation Reports database and normalised in order to minimise inter-disciplinary differences in citation behaviour. Non-LIS citing journals are shown to have IFs that are above the average for their subject categories, with this pattern of behaviour being considerably more pronounced for citations to LIS research published in non-LIS, rather than LIS, journals.

Online Survey of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers: Indicators of Quality in Manuscripts

Nursing journal peer reviewers (N = 1,675) completed a 69-item online survey that assessed their views on manuscripts' contributions to nursing, priorities in writing reviews, use of journal impact factor, and other areas related to indicators of quality. They reported using contribution to knowledge or research evidence, topic of current interest, and newly emerging area as indicators of a manuscript's contribution to nursing. In writing their reviews, research rigor and clinical relevance of the manuscript were high priorities. Those familiar with the concept of impact factor were significantly more often not nurses; not United States residents; involved in research; and most often reviewed for journals that published only research or a scholarly mix of research, reviews, policy, and theory. When judging a paper's contribution, nursing journal peer reviewers weigh both research and clinical interests. Most reviewers do not use impact factors and place clinical considerations ahead of impact factors.

Journal impact factors and the crisis of scholarly communication in Africa

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to suggest ways of improving the quality of Nigerian journals so that they would have global visibility and impact.Design/methodology/approachThis is a literature‐based opinion paper which examines the implication of evaluating Nigerian academics using journal impact factors, despite its limitations, particularly to African scholars.FindingsRevelations from available literature point to the fact that the use of journal impact factors is not an objective method of research evaluation, particularly in developing country like Nigeria. However, evaluation of research outputs remains critical in the overall socio‐economic, scientific and technological growth of any society. The creation of institutional repositories that are compliant with open archives initiatives by the relevant institutions in Nigeria would to a very large extent address the problem of visibility of research outputs coming from the country.Practical implicationsAfrican scholars are disadvantaged by their work environment in the present global scholarly productivity. This paper proposes a number approaches to improve the quality and global visibility of Nigerian scholarly productivity so that journal impact factors should no longer be a parameter for research evaluation in the country.Originality/valueThe originality of the paper lies in the strategies proposed for improving the quality of journals in Nigeria.

On the use and abuse of bibliometric performance indicators: a critique of Hix's ‘global ranking of political science departments’

Bibliometric measures, as provided by the Social Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information, certainly represent a useful tool for librarians and researchers. However, although librarian scientists have shown that the use of journal impact factors to evaluate the performance of academics is misleading, some authors continue to promote bibliometric metrics to assess the productivity of academic departments and even the entire European academic community. Taking an ambitious ‘global ranking of political science departments’ as a reference, this article questions both the reliability and desirability of bibliometric performance indicators. The article concludes that the development of a panopticon-like audit culture in universities will not enhance their quality, but rather undermine the classical idea and purpose of the university.

International Trauma Anesthesia and Critical Care Society (ITACCS).

International Trauma Anesthesia and Critical Care Society (ITACCS).