Article-level assessment of influence and translation in biomedical research

Given the vast scale of the modern scientific enterprise, it can be difficult for scientists to make judgments about the work of others through careful analysis of the entirety of the relevant literature. This has led to a reliance on metrics that are mathematically flawed and insufficiently diverse to account for the variety of ways in which investigators contribute to scientific progress. An urgent, critical first step in solving this problem is replacing the Journal Impact Factor with an article-level alternative. The Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), a metric that was designed to serve in that capacity, measures the influence of each publication on its respective area of research. RCR can serve as one component of a multifaceted metric that provides an effective data-driven supplement to expert opinion. Developing validated methods that quantify scientific progress can help to optimize the management of research investments and accelerate the acquisition of knowledge that improves human health.

Download Full-text

Accounting for Impact? The Journal Impact Factor and the Making of Biomedical Research in the Netherlands

Minerva ◽

10.1007/s11024-015-9274-5 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 53 (2) ◽

pp. 117-139 ◽

Cited By ~ 52

Author(s):

Alexander Rushforth ◽

Sarah de Rijcke

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Impact Factor ◽

Biomedical Research ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Journal Impact

Download Full-text

How Good Is Good Enough? - The Value of Impact Factor in Determining the Quality of Biomedical Research: A Review of Perspectives

10.31219/osf.io/zmbwv ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Mir Ibrahim Sajid ◽

Hafsa Khan Tareen ◽

Samira Shabbir Balouch ◽

Syed Muhammad Awais

Keyword(s):

Impact Factor ◽

Biomedical Research ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Citation Index ◽

Surrogate Marker ◽

Job Security ◽

Mathematical Equation ◽

The Impact ◽

Journal Impact

The Journal Impact Factor is a Science Citation Index developed metric to evaluate the citations an article receives over a period of two years and serves as a surrogate marker to evaluate the quality of biomedical research. However, even though the calculation seems to be a straightforward mathematical equation, multiple confounders artificially impact the score- such as citing behavior, the region and language the journal is published in, and the ‘tip of the iceberg’ phenomenon. Despite an increase in metrics developed to alternatively gauge the prestige of research and the researcher- such as Eigenfactor Score, Article Influence Score and Google PageRank, the impact factor remains an essential instrument in dictating the scientist’s future in terms of job security, tenure extension, grant approval, and acquiring bonus, both hierarchical and monetary

Download Full-text

Recommendation letters and contacts: an implicit pull string to end with in academia

10.31221/osf.io/ep9b2 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Khaled Moustafa

Keyword(s):

Impact Factor ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Scientific Enterprise ◽

Academic Field ◽

Number Of Citations ◽

Journal Impact

Objectivity and fairness are important characteristics of the scientific enterprise. However, the academic field is stuffed with many peculiarities that blemish it, such as the reliance on biased bibliometrics (journal impact factor, number of citations), cover letters, recommendation letters, etc. Recommendation letters and referees’ opinions can be helpful in some cases but they are personal appreciations that differ from one individual to another and, hence, should be used with caution or not at all as they can be easily influenced by different and changing factors to the detriment of objectivity and honesty.

Download Full-text

Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania

mBio ◽

10.1128/mbio.00064-14 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

Cited By ~ 68

Author(s):

Arturo Casadevall ◽

Ferric C. Fang

Keyword(s):

Economic Theory ◽

Impact Factor ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Tragedy Of The Commons ◽

Scientific Enterprise ◽

Irrational Behavior ◽

Underlying Causes ◽

The Commons ◽

The Impact ◽

Journal Impact

ABSTRACTNumerous essays have addressed the misuse of the journal impact factor for judging the value of science, but the practice continues, primarily as a result of the actions of scientists themselves. This seemingly irrational behavior is referred to as “impact factor mania.” Although the literature on the impact factor is extensive, little has been written on the underlying causes of impact factor mania. In this perspective, we consider the reasons for the persistence of impact factor mania and its pernicious effects on science. We conclude that impact factor mania persists because it confers significant benefits to individual scientists and journals. Impact factor mania is a variation of the economic theory known as the “tragedy of the commons,” in which scientists act rationally in their own self-interests despite the detrimental consequences of their actions on the overall scientific enterprise. Various measures to reduce the influence of the impact factor are considered.IMPORTANCEScience and scientists are currently afflicted by an epidemic of mania manifested by associating the value of research with the journal where the work is published rather than the content of the work itself. The mania is causing profound distortions in the way science is done that are deleterious to the overall scientific enterprise. In this essay, we consider the forces responsible for the persistence of the mania and conclude that it is maintained because it disproportionately benefits elements of the scientific enterprise, including certain well-established scientists, journals, and administrative interests. Our essay suggests steps that can be taken to deal with this debilitating and destructive epidemic.

Download Full-text

Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category

Education for Information ◽

10.3233/efi-200442 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-22

Author(s):

Metin Orbay ◽

Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽

Ruben Miranda

Keyword(s):

Impact Factor ◽

Educational Research ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Impact Factors ◽

Bibliometric Indicators ◽

Strongly Correlated ◽

Starting Point ◽

Consistent Assessment ◽

The Impact ◽

Journal Impact

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.

Download Full-text