Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures
Abstract 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 potential...
Published in: | Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SciELO
2020
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-9199-jvatitd-2019-0082 https://doaj.org/article/3daab8b05a174a90946a3b0fe650f530 |
id |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:3daab8b05a174a90946a3b0fe650f530 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:3daab8b05a174a90946a3b0fe650f530 2023-05-15T15:16:17+02:00 Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures Eugene Mech Muhammad Muneeb Ahmed Edward Tamale Matthew Holek Guowei Li Lehana Thabane 2020-08-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-9199-jvatitd-2019-0082 https://doaj.org/article/3daab8b05a174a90946a3b0fe650f530 EN eng SciELO http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-91992020000100326&tlng=en http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jvatitd/v26/1678-9199-jvatitd-26-e20190082.pdf https://doaj.org/toc/1678-9199 1678-9199 doi:10.1590/1678-9199-jvatitd-2019-0082 https://doaj.org/article/3daab8b05a174a90946a3b0fe650f530 Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, Vol 26 (2020) Journal Impact Factor Bibliometrics Alternative metrics Citations and impact Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine RC955-962 Toxicology. Poisons RA1190-1270 Zoology QL1-991 article 2020 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-9199-jvatitd-2019-0082 2022-12-30T20:20:46Z Abstract 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. Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Arctic Prisma ENVELOPE(-58.767,-58.767,-69.200,-69.200) Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases 26 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles |
op_collection_id |
ftdoajarticles |
language |
English |
topic |
Journal Impact Factor Bibliometrics Alternative metrics Citations and impact Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine RC955-962 Toxicology. Poisons RA1190-1270 Zoology QL1-991 |
spellingShingle |
Journal Impact Factor Bibliometrics Alternative metrics Citations and impact Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine RC955-962 Toxicology. Poisons RA1190-1270 Zoology QL1-991 Eugene Mech Muhammad Muneeb Ahmed Edward Tamale Matthew Holek Guowei Li Lehana Thabane Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures |
topic_facet |
Journal Impact Factor Bibliometrics Alternative metrics Citations and impact Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine RC955-962 Toxicology. Poisons RA1190-1270 Zoology QL1-991 |
description |
Abstract 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 |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Eugene Mech Muhammad Muneeb Ahmed Edward Tamale Matthew Holek Guowei Li Lehana Thabane |
author_facet |
Eugene Mech Muhammad Muneeb Ahmed Edward Tamale Matthew Holek Guowei Li Lehana Thabane |
author_sort |
Eugene Mech |
title |
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_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_sort |
evaluating journal impact factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures |
publisher |
SciELO |
publishDate |
2020 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-9199-jvatitd-2019-0082 https://doaj.org/article/3daab8b05a174a90946a3b0fe650f530 |
long_lat |
ENVELOPE(-58.767,-58.767,-69.200,-69.200) |
geographic |
Arctic Prisma |
geographic_facet |
Arctic Prisma |
genre |
Arctic |
genre_facet |
Arctic |
op_source |
Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, Vol 26 (2020) |
op_relation |
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-91992020000100326&tlng=en http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jvatitd/v26/1678-9199-jvatitd-26-e20190082.pdf https://doaj.org/toc/1678-9199 1678-9199 doi:10.1590/1678-9199-jvatitd-2019-0082 https://doaj.org/article/3daab8b05a174a90946a3b0fe650f530 |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-9199-jvatitd-2019-0082 |
container_title |
Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases |
container_volume |
26 |
_version_ |
1766346574306213888 |