Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact factor: Imperfect but not yet replaceable

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Braun, T. (Ed.) (2012). Special discussion issue on journal impact factors [Special issue]. Scientometrics, 92(2).

  • Braun, T., Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69, 169–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, S. (1995). Impact factor as the best operational measure of medical journals. Lancet, 346(8985), 1300–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacso, P. (2012). Grim tales about the impact factor and the h-index in the web of science and the journal citation reports databases: reflections on Vanclay’s criticism. Scientometrics, 92, 325–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., Colledge, L., Reedijk, J., Felix Moya-Anegon, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., Plume, A., et al. (2012). Citation-based metrics are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate and used in an informed way. Scientometrics, 92, 367–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendlebury, D. A., & Adams, J. (2012). Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 92, 395–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pudovkin, A. I., & Garfield, E. (2012). Rank normalization of impact factors will resolve Vanclay’s dilemma with TRIF. Comments on the paper by Jerome Vanclay. Scientometrics, 92, 409–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizkallah, J., & Sin, D. D. (2010). Integrative approach to quality assessment of medical journals using impact factor, eigenfactor, and article influence scores. PLoS ONE, 5(4), e10204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, J. K. (2012). Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics, 92, 211–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, PA1 2BE, UK

    Stuart Brody

Authors
  1. Stuart Brody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stuart Brody.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brody, S. Impact factor: Imperfect but not yet replaceable. Scientometrics 96, 255–257 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0863-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0863-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation