Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Impact factors—a critique

By Jeremy J. Ramsden

Abstract

The so-called impact factor (IF) started as a rather esoteric scientometric tool, itself derived from the science citation index (SCI), which originated with Eugene Garfield in the 1950s. The IF of a journal for a particular year is defined as the quotient of the number of citations received in that year by papers published in that journal in the two preceding years and the number of “citable” papers published in those two years. Had the IF remained, as might have been reasonable to expect, a specialist statistic mainly of interest to information professionals as represented by librarians and others there would be no need to expend energy on criticizing it. Unfortunately its use—or rather misuse—has vastly expanded in recent years, which makes criticism very necessary

Publisher: Collegium Basilea & AMSI
Year: 2009
OAI identifier: oai:dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk:1826/4351
Provided by: Cranfield CERES
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. doi
  2. (2003). Citation networks in high energy physics. doi
  3. (2008). Citation Statistics. doi
  4. (2008). Not only merely passively, but sometimes to the extent of going to great lengths to manipulate citations—see Z.
  5. (1977). Science perceived through the Science Citation Index. doi
  6. (2007). Show me the data. doi
  7. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.