Scientometrics

, 81:333 | Cite as

Quality is in the eye of the beholder? An evaluation of impact factors and perception of journal prestige in the UK

  • Jonathan C. Catling
  • Victoria L. Mason
  • Dominic Upton
Article

Abstract

A number of proxy measures have been used as indicators of journal quality. The most recent and commonly employed are journal impact factors. These measures are somewhat controversial, although they are frequently referred to in establishing the impact of published journal articles. Within psychology, little is known about the relationship between the ‘objective’ impact factors of journals and the ‘subjective’ ratings of prestige and perceived publishing difficulty amongst academics. In order to address this, a cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted in the UK to investigate research activity and academics’ views of journals within three fields of psychology; cognitive, health and social. Impact factors for each journal were correlated with individual academic’s perceptions of prestige and publishing difficulty for each journal. A number of variables pertaining to the individual academic and their place of work were assessed as predictors of these correlation values, including age, gender, institution type, and a measure of departmental research activity. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to perceptions of journal prestige and publishing difficulty, higher education in general and the assessment of research activity within academic institutions.

References

  1. Adair, J. G., Vohra, N. (2003), The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations: Psychology’s unique response to a crisis. American Psychologist, 58: 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen H. (1996), ACTA Sociologica på den internationale arena-hvad kan SSCI fortælle? Dansk Sociologi, 2: 72–8.Google Scholar
  3. Ansel, F., Duyck, W., De Baene, W., Brysbaert, M. (2004), Journal impact factors and self-citations: implications for psychological journals, American Psychologist, 59: 49–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boor, M. (1982), The citation impact factor: Another dubious index of journal quality, American Psychologist, 37: 975–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaham, M., Wears, R. L., Weber, E. (2002), Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals, JAMA 5, 287(21): 2847–2850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chew, M., Villanueva, E. V., van Der Weyden, M. B. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole, S. (1989), Citations and the evaluation of individual scientists, Trends in Biochemical Science, 14: 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frank, M. (2003), Impact factors: Arbiter of excellence? J Med Libr Assoc, 91(1): 4–6.Google Scholar
  9. Garfield, E. (1999), Journal impact factor: A brief review, CMAJ, 16: 979–980.Google Scholar
  10. Garfield, E. (2003), The meaning of the impact factor. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 3: 363–369.Google Scholar
  11. Garfield E., Sher I. H. (1963), Genetics Citation Index. Philadelphia, Pa: Institute for Scientific Information; July 1963. Available at: http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v7p515y1984.pdf. Accessibility verified November 29, 2005.Google Scholar
  12. HEFCE (2007, November), Research Excellence Framework. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2007/07_34
  13. Opthof, T. (1997), Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovascular Research, 33: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Patsopoulos, N. A., Analatos, A. A., Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005), Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences, JAMA, 293(19): 2362–2366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pursglove, J., Simpson, M. (2007), Benchmarking the performance of English universities, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 14(1): 102–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Saha, S., Saint, S., Christakis, D. A. (2003), Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc., 91(1): 42–46.Google Scholar
  17. Seglen, P. O. (1989), From bad to worse: evaluation by journal impact factor, Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 14: 326–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seglen, P. O. (1997), Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research, BMJ, 314: 498–02.Google Scholar
  19. von Tunzelmann, N., Mbula, E. Kraemer (28 February 2003), Changes in Research Assessment Practices in Other Countries Since 1999. Final report. Retrieved February 20, 2008 from www.rareview.ac.uk /reports/Prac/ChangingPractices.docGoogle Scholar
  20. Walters, G. D. (2006), Measuring the utility of journals in the crime-psychology field: Beyond the impact factor, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,. 57(13): 1804–1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan C. Catling
    • 1
  • Victoria L. Mason
    • 1
  • Dominic Upton
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychological SciencesUniversity of WorcesterWorcesterUK

Personalised recommendations