Abstract
Introduction
The Impact Factor (IF) has originally been designed as a bibliometric tool to estimate the relevance of a scientific journal and has as such gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. It denominates the ratio of all citations received by a particular journal within 1 year and all original research or review articles published by that journal during the preceding 2 years.
Discussion
Recently, the IF is more and more frequently used to judge the importance of single articles or the scientific achievement of researchers themselves. These approaches are associated with a number of backlashes such as the inability of the IF to reflect citation rates of single articles, the lack of elimination of self-citations and the time frame within which the IF is calculated (i.e., the two preceding years). Thus, for the evaluation of single articles, citation rankings would be—though time consuming in their compilation—more adequate. For the assessment of the scientific output of individual researchers, the h-index is emerging as a valuable tool which reflects both the citation rate as well as the number of publications of a given researcher.
Conclusion
Although the IF is suitable for judging the overall importance of journals, IF rankings should be made solely within the respective subspecialty categorizations to avoid overrepresentation of larger research areas. In conclusion, the IF remains the widest accepted qualitative tool for the benchmarking of journals, though the assessment of individual scientific quality remains a challenging endeavor.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122:108–111. doi:10.1126/science.122.3159.108
Garfield E (1972) Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178:471–479. doi:10.1126/science.178.4060.471
Simons K (2008) The misused impact factor. Science 322:165. doi:10.1126/science.1165316
Vinkler P (1986) Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics 10:157–177. doi:10.1007/BF02026039
Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E (2007) Show me the data. J Cell Biol 179:1091–1092. doi:10.1083/jcb.200711140
Chew M, Villanueva EV, Van Der Weyden MB (2007) Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994–2005) and their Editors’ views. J R Soc Med 100:142–150. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.3.142
Gami AS, Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB (2004) Author self-citation in the diabetes literature. CMAJ 170:1925–1927, discussion 1929-1930
Falagas ME, Kavvadia P (2006) "Eigenlob": self-citation in biomedical journals. FASEB J 20:1039–1042. doi:10.1096/fj.06-0603ufm
Smith R (1997) Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. Br Med J 314:461
Fassoulaki A, Paraskeva A, Papilas K, Karabinis G (2000) Self-citations in six anaesthesia journals and their significance in determining the impact factor. Br J Anaesth 84:266–269
Neuberger J, Counsell C (2002) Impact factors: uses and abuses. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:209–211
Hakansson A (2005) The Impact Factor—a dubious measure of scientific quality. Scand J Prim Health Care 23:193–194. doi:10.1080/02813430500287232
Mueller PS, Murali NS, Cha SS, Erwin PF, Ghosh AK (2006) The association between impact factors and language of general internal medicine journals. Swiss Med Wkly 136:441–443
Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br Med J 314:498–502
Beger HG (2002) Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery belongs in the top ten journals in general and GI-tract surgery worldwide—the challenge of an impact factor of 1.77. Langenbecks Arch Surg 386:481. doi:10.1007/s00423-001-0265-7
Opthof T (1997) Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovasc Res 33:1–7
Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ (1951) Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 193:265–275
Kresge N, Simoni RD, Hill RL (2005) The most highly cited paper in publishing history: protein determination by Oliver H. Lowry. J Biol Chem 280:e25
Lowry OH (1977) Comment on Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. Curr Contents 1:7
Monastersky R (2005) The number that’s devouring science. The impact factor, once a simple way to rank scientific journals, has become an unyielding yardstick for hiring, tenure, and grants. Chron High Educ 52:A12
Moed HF, Burger WJM, Frankfort JG, AFJ VR (1985) A comparative study of bibliometric past performance analysis and peer judgement. Scientometrics 8:149–159. doi:10.1007/BF02016933
Bergstrom CT, West JD (2008) Assessing citations with the Eigenfactor metrics. Neurology 71:1850–1851. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000338904.37585.66
Neylon C, Wu S (2009) Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biol 7:e1000242. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242
Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Ball P (2007) Achievement index climbs the ranks. Nature 448:737. doi:10.1038/448737a
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rieder, S., Bruse, C.S., Michalski, C.W. et al. The impact factor ranking—a challenge for scientists and publishers. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395 (Suppl 1), 69–73 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-010-0623-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-010-0623-4