Cargando…
Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures
BACKGROUND: Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially mislea...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Centro de Estudos de Venenos e Animais Peçonhentos
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7458102/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32944018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2019-0082 |
_version_ | 1783576127744245760 |
---|---|
author | Mech, Eugene Ahmed, Muhammad Muneeb Tamale, Edward Holek, Matthew Li, Guowei Thabane, Lehana |
author_facet | Mech, Eugene Ahmed, Muhammad Muneeb Tamale, Edward Holek, Matthew Li, Guowei Thabane, Lehana |
author_sort | Mech, Eugene |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF. METHODS: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency. RESULTS: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF. CONCLUSION: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7458102 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Centro de Estudos de Venenos e Animais Peçonhentos |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74581022020-09-16 Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures Mech, Eugene Ahmed, Muhammad Muneeb Tamale, Edward Holek, Matthew Li, Guowei Thabane, Lehana J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis Research BACKGROUND: Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF. METHODS: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency. RESULTS: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF. CONCLUSION: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties. Centro de Estudos de Venenos e Animais Peçonhentos 2020-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC7458102/ /pubmed/32944018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2019-0082 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Mech, Eugene Ahmed, Muhammad Muneeb Tamale, Edward Holek, Matthew Li, Guowei Thabane, Lehana Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures |
title | Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and
cons, and overview of alternative measures |
title_full | Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and
cons, and overview of alternative measures |
title_fullStr | Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and
cons, and overview of alternative measures |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and
cons, and overview of alternative measures |
title_short | Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and
cons, and overview of alternative measures |
title_sort | evaluating journal impact factor: a systematic survey of the pros and
cons, and overview of alternative measures |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7458102/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32944018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2019-0082 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mecheugene evaluatingjournalimpactfactorasystematicsurveyoftheprosandconsandoverviewofalternativemeasures AT ahmedmuhammadmuneeb evaluatingjournalimpactfactorasystematicsurveyoftheprosandconsandoverviewofalternativemeasures AT tamaleedward evaluatingjournalimpactfactorasystematicsurveyoftheprosandconsandoverviewofalternativemeasures AT holekmatthew evaluatingjournalimpactfactorasystematicsurveyoftheprosandconsandoverviewofalternativemeasures AT liguowei evaluatingjournalimpactfactorasystematicsurveyoftheprosandconsandoverviewofalternativemeasures AT thabanelehana evaluatingjournalimpactfactorasystematicsurveyoftheprosandconsandoverviewofalternativemeasures |