Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

More Transparency is Needed When Citing h-Indexes, Journal Impact Factors and CiteScores

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

h-indexes, Journal Impact Factors and CiteScores are often presented as a single numeric value, without providing any context. Under such circumstances, the reader is unable to fully appreciate, or comprehend, the information being presented. By not being transparent, it also presents the opportunity for unscrupulous operators, such as predatory journals, to provide non-sensical information in the hope that the potential author will misinterpret it and submit an article in the expectation that they are submitting to a high-quality journal. Dubious metrics are also able to enter the sector, again in the hope that their metric will be read under an incorrect assumption. Following an overview of the main metrics that are commonly used, this paper suggests how these metrics should be cited. Adopting these proposals would not only provide the reader will full information but also enable bogus measures, which have proliferated in recent years, to be recognized more easily.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment), https://sfdora.org/read/ (accessed January 11, 2024).

  2. https://clarivate.com/the-institute-for-scientific-information/history-of-isi/ (accessed: January 11, 2024).

  3. https://sfdora.org/ (accessed: January 11, 2024).

  4. https://coara.eu/ (accessed January 11, 2024).

  5. We choose this journal as we are familiar with it, but it is widely representative.

References

  1. Bi, H.H. 2023. “Correction to: Four problems of the h-index for assessing the research productivity and impact of individual authors.” Scientometrics 128 (5): 2693–2699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04455-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Callaway, E. 2016. “Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric.” Nature 535 (7611): 210–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chung, H.-K. 2007. “Evaluating academic journals using impact factor and local citation score.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 33 (3): 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.01.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dadkhah, M., G. Borchardt, M. Lagzian, and G. Bianciardi. 2017. “Academic journals plagued by bogus impact factors.” Publishing Research Quarterly 33 (2): 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9509-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. García, J.A., Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez, and J. Fdez-Valdivia. 2011. “Ranking of the subject areas of Scopus.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (10): 2013–2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21589.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Garfield, E. 1955. “Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas.” Science 122 (3159): 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108. (republished in Garfield, 2006)

  7. Garfield, E. 1999. “Journal impact factor: A brief review.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 161 (8): 979–980.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Garfield, E. 2006. “Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas.” International Journal of Epidemiology 35 (5): 1123–1127. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyl189.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Garfield, G. 1980. “How it all began—With a loan from HFC.” Essays of an Information Scientist 4 (3): 359–362.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Garfield, E., and I.H. Sher. 1963. “New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing.” American Documentation 14 (3): 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140304.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gorraiz, J., U. Ulrych, W. Glänzel, W. Arroyo-Machado, and D. Torres-Salinas. 2022. “Measuring the excellence contribution at the journal level: An alternative to Garfield’s impact factor.” Scientometrics 127 (12): 7229–7251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04295-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gross, P.L.K., and E.M. Gross. 1927. “College libraries and chemical education.” Science 66 (1713): 385–389. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.66.1713.385.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gutierrez, F.R.S., J. Beall, and D.A. Forero. 2015. “Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective.” BioEssays 37 (5): 474–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201500011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hicks, D., P. Wouters, L. Waltman, S. de Rijcke, and I. Rafols. 2015. “Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics.” Nature 520 (7548): 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hirsch, J.E. 2005. “An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output.” PNAS 102 (46): 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoeffel, C. 1998. “Journal impact factors.” Allergy 53 (12): 1225–1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03848.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hu, G., L. Wang, R. Ni, and W. Liu. 2020. “Which h-index? An exploration within the web of science.” Scientometrics 123 (3): 1225–1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03425-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jalalian, M. 2015. “The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them.” Electronic Physician 7 (2): 1069–1072.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Jalalian, M., and H. Mahboobi. 2013. “New corruption detected: Bogus impact factors compiled by fake organizations.” Electronic Physician 5 (3): 685–686.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kendall, G. 2021. “Beall’s legacy in the battle against predatory publishers.” Learned Publishing 34 (3): 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kendall, G., and S. Linacre. 2022. “Predatory journals: Revisiting Beall’s research.” Publishing Research Quarterly 38 (3): 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09888-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kendall, G., A. Yee, and S. Hardy. 2017. “We should be just a number, and we should embrace it.” The Electronic Library 35 (2): 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-04-2016-0090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Leena, G., and V.K.J. Jeevan. 2022. “Disrupting predatory journals.” Current Science 122 (4): 396–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mryglod, O., Yu. Holovatch, and R. Kenna. 2022. “Big fish and small ponds: Why the departmental h-index should not be used to rank universities.” Scientometrics 127 (6): 3279–3292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04373-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Okagbue, H.I., and J.A. Teixeira da Silva. 2020. “Correlation between the CiteScore and journal impact factor of top-ranked library and information science journals.” Scientometrics 124 (1): 797–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03457-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pendlebury, D.A. 2021. 1.3 “Eugene Garfield and the Institute for Scientific Information.” In Handbook bibliometrics, edited by Rafael Ball, 27–40. De Gruyter Saur: Berlin, Boston.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Rossner, M., H. Van Epps, and E. Hill. 2007. “Show me the data.” Journal of Cell Biology 179 (6): 1091–1092. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200711140.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Schubert, A., and G. Schubert. 2019. “All along the h-index-related literature: A guided tour.” In Springer Handbook of science and technology indicators, edited by Wolfgang Glänzel, Henk F. Moed, Ulrich Schmoch, and Mike Thelwall, 301–334. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Seglen, P.O. 1997. “Citations and journal impact factors: Questionable indicators of research quality.” Allergy 52 (11): 1050–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1997.tb00175.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sinclair, M. 2019. “What is DORA?” Evidence Based Midwifery 17 (4): 111–112.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., M. Moradzadeh, K.O.K. Adjei, C.M. Owusu-Ansah, M. Balehegn, E.I. Faúndez, M.D. Janodia, and A. Al-Khatib. 2022. “An integrated paradigm shift to deal with predatory publishing.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (1): 102481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Torres-Salinas, D., P. Valderrama-Baca, and W. Arroyo-Machado. 2022. “Is there a need for a new journal metric? Correlations between JCR impact factor metrics and the Journal Citation Indicator-JCI.” Journal of Informetrics 16 (3): 101315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Upadhyay, A., and A. Kaushik. 2022. “DORA challenges.” British Dental Journal 233 (6): 439–440. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-5047-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Van Noorden, R. 2016. “Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival.” Nature 540 (7633): 325–326. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.21131.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Walters, W.H. 2022. “The citation impact of the open access accounting journals that appear on Beall’s list of potentially predatory publishers and journals.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (1): 102484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wouters, P. 2017. “Eugene Garfield (1925–2017).” Nature 543 (7646): 492. https://doi.org/10.1038/543492a.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nottingham Malaysia, Jalan Broga, 43500, Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

    Graham Kendall

  2. University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

    Graham Kendall

Authors
  1. Graham Kendall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Graham Kendall.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 87 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kendall, G. More Transparency is Needed When Citing h-Indexes, Journal Impact Factors and CiteScores. Pub Res Q (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-024-09983-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-024-09983-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation