Cargando…
The "impact factor" revisited
The number of scientific journals has become so large that individuals, institutions and institutional libraries cannot completely store their physical content. In order to prioritize the choice of quality information sources, librarians and scientists are in need of reliable decision aids. The &quo...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2005
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1315333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16324222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-2-7 |
_version_ | 1782126380705644544 |
---|---|
author | Dong, Peng Loh, Marie Mondry, Adrian |
author_facet | Dong, Peng Loh, Marie Mondry, Adrian |
author_sort | Dong, Peng |
collection | PubMed |
description | The number of scientific journals has become so large that individuals, institutions and institutional libraries cannot completely store their physical content. In order to prioritize the choice of quality information sources, librarians and scientists are in need of reliable decision aids. The "impact factor" (IF) is the most commonly used assessment aid for deciding which journals should receive a scholarly submission or attention from research readership. It is also an often misunderstood tool. This narrative review explains how the IF is calculated, how bias is introduced into the calculation, which questions the IF can or cannot answer, and how different professional groups can benefit from IF use. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1315333 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2005 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-13153332005-12-16 The "impact factor" revisited Dong, Peng Loh, Marie Mondry, Adrian Biomed Digit Libr Review The number of scientific journals has become so large that individuals, institutions and institutional libraries cannot completely store their physical content. In order to prioritize the choice of quality information sources, librarians and scientists are in need of reliable decision aids. The "impact factor" (IF) is the most commonly used assessment aid for deciding which journals should receive a scholarly submission or attention from research readership. It is also an often misunderstood tool. This narrative review explains how the IF is calculated, how bias is introduced into the calculation, which questions the IF can or cannot answer, and how different professional groups can benefit from IF use. BioMed Central 2005-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC1315333/ /pubmed/16324222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-2-7 Text en Copyright © 2005 Dong et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Dong, Peng Loh, Marie Mondry, Adrian The "impact factor" revisited |
title | The "impact factor" revisited |
title_full | The "impact factor" revisited |
title_fullStr | The "impact factor" revisited |
title_full_unstemmed | The "impact factor" revisited |
title_short | The "impact factor" revisited |
title_sort | "impact factor" revisited |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1315333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16324222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-2-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dongpeng theimpactfactorrevisited AT lohmarie theimpactfactorrevisited AT mondryadrian theimpactfactorrevisited AT dongpeng impactfactorrevisited AT lohmarie impactfactorrevisited AT mondryadrian impactfactorrevisited |