Abstract
AbstractAlthough the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is widely acknowledged to be a poor indicator of the quality of individual papers, it is used routinely to evaluate research and researchers. Here, we present a simple method for generating the citation distributions that underlie JIFs. Application of this straightforward protocol reveals the full extent of the skew of these distributions and the variation in citations received by published papers that is characteristic of all scientific journals. Although there are differences among journals across the spectrum of JIFs, the citation distributions overlap extensively, demonstrating that the citation performance of individual papers cannot be inferred from the JIF. We propose that this methodology be adopted by all journals as a move to greater transparency, one that should help to refocus attention on individual pieces of work and counter the inappropriate usage of JIFs during the process of research assessment.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference39 articles.
1. Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation
2. The rationing debate: Defining a package of healthcare services the NHS is responsible for The case for
3. Nefarious numbers;Notices of the AMS,2011
4. Curry S. (2012) Sick of Impact Factors. Reciprocal Space. Available from: http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/08/13/sick-of-impactfactors/. Accessed 15 June 2016.
5. Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania
Cited by
107 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献