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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mech, Eugene, Ahmed, Muhammad Muneeb, Tamale, Edward, Holek, Matthew, Li, Guowei, Thabane, Lehana
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