Advertisement

Netherlands Heart Journal

, Volume 20, Issue 10, pp 385–386 | Cite as

Journal impact factor: holy grail?

  • E. E. van der Wall
Editor's comment

Currently, the scientific community uses several bibliometric indices to define the impact of a scientific publication and the journal in which it was published. One of these parameters is the science citation index, a valid way to assist librarians in managing bibliographic control and costs effectively. The citation index quantifies the number of citations a particular publication receives. In turn, this information is used to calculate a journal-specific parameter, the journal impact factor [1, 2]. The impact factor is defined as the average number of citations received per paper published in a specific journal during the preceding 2 years. These two parameters have since evolved differently from their original intention: both are used as quantifiable measures of quality, of the scientist and of the journal in which the scientist publishes. A third parameter, the so-called H-index, is an alternative to the citation index. The H (or Hirsch) index attempts to measure both the...

References

  1. 1.
    Van der Wall EE. Increased recognition of the NHJ: go for the impact factor. Neth Heart J. 2009;17:3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van der Wall. Increasing recognition of NHJ: a first-time impact factor of 1.4! Neth Heart J. 2010;18:399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williamson JR. My h-index turns 40: my midlife crisis of impact. ACS Chem Biol. 2009;4:311–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue — cohort study. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McAlister FA, Lawson FME, Good AH, et al. Evaluating research in cardiovascular medicine: citation counts are not sufficient. Circulation. 2011;123:1038–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A statement on ethics from the HEART Group. Neth Heart J. 2008;16:153–5.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drazen JM, de Leeuw PW, Laine C, et al. Toward more uniform conflict disclosures—the updated ICMJE conflict of interest reporting form. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:188–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alfonso F, Ambrosio G, Pinto FJ, et al. European national society cardiovascular journals: background, rationale and mission statement of the ‘Editors‘ Club’ (Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology). Neth Heart J. 2010;18:202–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alfonso F, Timmis A, Pinto FJ, et al. Conflict of interest policies and disclosure requirements among European Society of Cardiology national cardiovascular journals. Neth Heart J. 2012;20:279–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Darmoni SJ, Roussel F, Benichou J, et al. Reading factor: a new bibliometric criterion for managing digital libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90:323–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Boer MJ, van der Wall EE. Towards better cardiovascular journals. Neth Heart J. 2008;16:151–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loscalzo J. Can scientific quality be quantified? Circulation. 2011;123:947–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Media / Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interuniversity Cardiology Institute of the Netherlands (ICIN) - Netherlands Heart Institute (NHI)Utrechtthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations