The journal impact factor: angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on J.K. Vanclay’s article 2011
- 484 Downloads
J.K. Vanclay’s article is a bold attempt to review recent works on the journal impact factor (JIF) and to call for alternative certifications of journals. The too broad scope did not allow the author to fulfill all his purposes. Attempting after many others to organize the various forms of criticism, with targets often broader than the JIF, we shall try to comment on a few points. This will hopefully enable us to infer in which cases the JIF is an angel, a devil, or a scapegoat. We shall also expand on a crucial question that Vanclay could not really develop in the reduced article format: the field-normalization. After a short recall on classical cited-side or ex post normalization and of the powerful influence measures, we will devote some attention to the novel way of citing-side or ex ante normalization, not only for its own interest, but because it directly proceeds from the disassembling of the JIF clockwork.
KeywordsBibliometric measures Impact factor Impact factor limitations Field-normalized impact-factor Citation behavior Citation normalization Citing-side normalization Source-level normalization
The author thanks S. Ramanana-Rahary and E. Bassecoulard for their help.
- Adler, R., Ewing, J., & Taylor, P. (2008). Citation statistics. A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the International Council of Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS). Summarized in (2009). Statistical Science, 24(1), 1–14.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor: measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68, 5, www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crlnews/backissues2007/may2007/eigenfactor.cfm.
- Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big leviathan: how actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In Karin. D. Knorr Cetina & Aaraon. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies (pp. 277–303). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
- Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process; the role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.Google Scholar
- de Moya-Anegon, F. (2007). SCImago. SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank.Google Scholar
- de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Hagström, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. Moed, W. Glanzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
- Merton, R.K. (1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of legal and political sociology, 1, 115–126 (reprint: The normative structure of science (1973). In Storer N.W. (ed.), The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 1267–1278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
- Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics : the use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity (Report prepared for the National Science Foundation, Contract NSF C-627). Cherry Hill: Computer Horizons.Google Scholar
- Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2003). A general framework for relative impact indicators. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 27(1), 29–48.Google Scholar
- Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2009). A taxonomy of bibliometric performance indicators based on the property of consistency. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, 1002–1003.Google Scholar