Cargando…

Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics?

There is a natural tendency to judge a gift by the attractiveness of its wrapping. In some respect, this reflects current mores of measuring the gravitas of a scientific paper based on the journal cover in which the work appears. Most journals have an impact factor (IF) which some proudly display on...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Jeang, Kuan-Teh
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17577403
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4690-4-42
_version_ 1782133870520434688
author Jeang, Kuan-Teh
author_facet Jeang, Kuan-Teh
author_sort Jeang, Kuan-Teh
collection PubMed
description There is a natural tendency to judge a gift by the attractiveness of its wrapping. In some respect, this reflects current mores of measuring the gravitas of a scientific paper based on the journal cover in which the work appears. Most journals have an impact factor (IF) which some proudly display on their face page. Although historically journal IF has been a convenient quantitative shorthand, has its (mis)use contributed to inaccurate perceptions of the quality of scientific articles? Is now the time that equally convenient but more individually accurate metrics be adopted?
format Text
id pubmed-1894640
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-18946402007-06-19 Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics? Jeang, Kuan-Teh Retrovirology Editorial There is a natural tendency to judge a gift by the attractiveness of its wrapping. In some respect, this reflects current mores of measuring the gravitas of a scientific paper based on the journal cover in which the work appears. Most journals have an impact factor (IF) which some proudly display on their face page. Although historically journal IF has been a convenient quantitative shorthand, has its (mis)use contributed to inaccurate perceptions of the quality of scientific articles? Is now the time that equally convenient but more individually accurate metrics be adopted? BioMed Central 2007-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC1894640/ /pubmed/17577403 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4690-4-42 Text en Copyright © 2007 Jeang; 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 Editorial
Jeang, Kuan-Teh
Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics?
title Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics?
title_full Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics?
title_fullStr Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics?
title_full_unstemmed Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics?
title_short Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics?
title_sort impact factor, h index, peer comparisons, and retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics?
topic Editorial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17577403
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4690-4-42
work_keys_str_mv AT jeangkuanteh impactfactorhindexpeercomparisonsandretrovirologyisittimetoindividualizecitationmetrics