IMPACTITIS: THE IMPACT FACTOR MYTH SYNDROME

Impact Factors and Other Measures of a Journal's Influence

The role of impact factor in evaluating the value of scientific publications is critically reviewed.
\nOther possible criteria for evaluation are assessed and proposed.

Blockbuster effect of COVID-19 on the impact factor of infectious disease journals

We assessed the relationship between the size of the 39 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) medical categories and impact factor (IF) of journals in these categories, and the implications that it might have for emergency medicine (EM) journals. Using the 2010 JCR database, we calculated the mean IF, 5-year IF (5y-IF), Eigenfactor (EF), and Article Influence (AI) scores including all journals for each category. We also calculated a 'weighted IF' for all journals by dividing each journal IF by the mean IF of its category. We ranked EM journals according to IF and 'weighted IF' into all the journals included in the 39 categories. We assessed the relationship between category size and bibliometric scores by linear regression. Category size varied from 252 journals (Pharmacology and Pharmacy) to 14 (Primary Healthcare), EM category occupying the 36th position (23 journals). The mean IF of EM category ranked in 34th position, 5-yIF in 32nd, EF in 34th, and AI in 34th position. Category size had a direct and significant association with mean IF, 5y-IF, and AI but not with mean EF. When the EM journals were ranked among all the journals according to their IF, only two (9%) were placed into the first quartile and raised up to eight (35%) when 'weighted IF' was considered. There is a negative relationship between JCR size category and IF achieved by the journals. This places EM journals at a clear disadvantage because they represent one of the smallest clinical medical research disciplines.

The Impact Factor and Collection Development The journal impact factor (IF) is reported by ISI in Journal Citation Reports (JCR). “A journal's impact factor is based on 2 elements: the numerator, which is the number of citations in the current year to any items published in a journal in the previous 2 years, and the denominator, which is the number of substantive articles (source items) published in the same 2 years” [1]. Much research has been done on IF as a measure of local journal use for collection development. Blecic used a comparison of three methods: in-house use, circulation, and citation to determine journal use, finding a “significant correlation” between the three methods and arguing that because of this correlation, only one type of data was necessary to make retention decisions [2]. MacDonald's study of online journal usage in relation to citation analysis examined whether online journal use (as measured by an academic library) and a library's publisher-reported full-text downloads predicted citations, finding that “citation is clearly related to usage” [3]. Using Biosis Previews, Davis identified core journals in the life sciences by analyzing the journals in which Cornell University authors published [4]. Davis concluded that the “generic metrics of the JCR simply cannot provide the campus-level data crucial to making informed decisions about the local importance of individual titles,” as argued earlier by Pan [5] and Chrzastowski [6].

Hard Impact: Journal Impact Factor and JMT

Misuse of Journal Impact Factors in Scientific Assessment

The journal impact factor (JIF) is a measure that provides a ratio of citations to a journal in a given year to the citable items in the prior two years. The JIF has become a symbol and measure of a journal's prestige in the modern world of peer-reviewed publications. The difficulty and importance for a peer-reviewed journal to obtain an impact factor has been highlighted in numerous medical journals. Irving H. Sher and Eugene Garfield were the first to create the concept of the impact factor of a peer-reviewed journal. According to Eugene Garfield (2006), the JIF is based on two elements: the numerator, which is the number of citations in the current year to items published in the previous two years, and the denominator, which is the number of substantive articles and reviews published in the same two years. Scientists around the world may notice that as of 2024, the JIF is calculated not only by Clarivate, but also by exaly. Clarivate is known for being the company that calculates the JIF, using data from its Web of Science product family, that also includes services/applications such as Publons, etc. In this editorial, we will explain in more detail why the JIF is important both for the peer-reviewed journals published in Ukraine and for Ukrainian authors. Also, let's also explain how both the impact factor calculated by Web of Science and the impact factor calculated by exaly can be useful. The article presents the experience of the Journal of Diagnostics and Treatment of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology in assigning it an impact factor calculated by the exaly. The advantages for Ukrainian authors of publishing articles in the journals with an impact factor are presented. According to the Order of the Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine of February 22, 2019, No. 446, publication of an article or review in a journal with an impact factor allows an oral and maxillofacial surgeon to be awarded 20 or 30 continuing professional development (CPD) points. The CPD points obtained are necessary for doctors to the annual review of their personal educational portfolio with CPD points, certification, confirmation or obtaining a new doctor’s category. In summary, the peer-reviewed journal that has received an impact factor automatically becomes a kind of provider of CPD activities for healthcare professionals, for which CPD points are awarded.

It always begins innocently enough! In the middle of the 19th century, mining and earthmoving were increasingly important enterprises of the industrial revolution. To remove rock and to open mine shafts, an explosive was needed, but nitroglycerine was too unstable for practical use. The Swedish scientist/inventor Alfred Nobel discovered that mixing nitroglycerine with the diatomaceous earth kieselguhr produced a stable explosive product he patented as dynamite, which was quickly adopted by the mining and construction industries. In the early 20th century, the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, while attempting to understand the structure of atomic nuclei, discovered that nuclei bombarded by neutrons would split and release large amounts of energy. As others have employed these discoveries, both dynamite and nuclear fission have had destructive effects on society that were initially unimaginable by their discoverers. It was only a quarter century after the first nuclear fission bombs that Eugene Garfield, a library scientist and structural linguist from the University of Pennsylvania, discovered a metric that could be used to select journals for inclusion in his new publication Genetics Citation Index (the forerunner of Science Citation Index, which was subsequently commercialized by Garfield’s company Institute for Scientific Information). This metric for journals was named “impact factor” and was to be calculated “based on 2 elements: the numerator, which is the number of citations in the current year to any items published in a journal in the previous 2 years, and the denominator, which is the number of substantive articles (source items) published in the same 2 years.” 1,2 Thus, although the journal impact factor was born innocently enough, just like the examples involving Nobel and Fermi, Garfield’s impact factor is now being used by others in ways that threaten to destroy scientific inquiry as we know it. 3,4 For much of human history (about 200,000 generations), scientists were few in number, often worked in relative isolation, and only communicated findings to close

The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) publishes annually listings of impact factors of scientific journals, based upon data extracted from the Science Citation Index (SCI). The impact factor of a journal is defined as the average number of citations given in a specific year to documents published in that journal in the two preceding years, divided by the number of “citable” documents published in that journal in those 2 years. This article presents evidence that for a considerable number of journals the values of the impact factors published in ISI's Journal Citation Reports (JCR) are inaccurate, particularly for several journals having a high impact factor. The inaccuracies are due to an inappropriate definition of citable documents. Document types not defined by ISI as citable (particularly letters and editorials) are actually cited and do contribute to the citation counts of a journal. We present empirical data in order to assess the degree of inaccuracy due to this phenomenon. For several journals the results are striking. We propose to calculate for a journal impact factors per type of document rather than one single impact factor as given currently in the JCR. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor

Journals' impact and pecking order: tyranny and tyrannosaurs

Comprehensive decade-long analysis of point-of-care resources reveals insights into how clinical research makes its way into practice across different medical specialties and through time to enable us to identify potential translational bottlenecks in the pathway from research to practice.

Background The simplest variables to quantify on an academic curriculum vitae are the impact factors (IFs) of journals in which articles have been published. As a result, these measures are increasingly used as part of academic staff assessment. The present study tests the hypotheses that IFs exhibit patterns that are consistent between journals of different specialties and that these IFs reflect the quality of staff academic performance. Methods The IFs of a sample of journals from each of four medical specialties—medicine, oncology, genetics, and public and occupational health—were downloaded from the Science Citation Index and compared. Overall and specialty-specific journal IF frequencies were analyzed with respect to distribution patterns, averages, and skew. Results Approximately 91% of journal IFs fell within the 0 to 5 range, with 97% being less than 10. The overall IF distribution featured a positive skew and a mean of 2.5. Separate analysis of the journal specialty subsets revealed significant differences in IF means (genetics 3.4 > oncology 3.1 > medicine 2.0 > public health 1.6; p < .006), all of which well exceeded the respective IF medians. Journals from the general medicine category exhibited both the lowest IF median (0.7) and the most positively skewed distribution. Conclusion The distribution of IFs exhibits degrees of skew, numeric average, and spread that differ significantly between journal specialty subsets. This suggests that factors other than random variations underlie much of the IF variation between specialty journals and reduces the plausibility of a reliable correlation between IFs and the quality of academic staff performance. It is concluded that a dominant emphasis on IFs in academic recruitment and promotion may select for long-term faculty characteristics other than academic quality alone.

Adult Reconstruction Studies Presented at AAOS and AAHKS 2011-2015 Annual Meetings. Is There a Difference in Future Publication?