, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 171–193 | Cite as

Journal impact measures in bibliometric research

  • Wolfgang Glänzel
  • Henk F. Moed


The Impact Factor introduced by Eugene Garfield is a fundamental citation-based measure for significance and performance of scientific journals. It is perhaps the most popular bibliometric product used in bibliometrics itself, as well as outside the scientific community. First, a concise review of the background and history of the ISI impact factor and the basic ideas underlying it are given. A cross-citation matrix is used to visualise the construction of the Impact Factor and several related journal citation measures.Both strengths and flaws of the impact factor are discussed. Several attempts made by different authors to introduce more sophisticated journal citation measures and the reasons why many indicators aiming at a correction of methodological limitations of the Impact Factor were not successful are described. The next section is devoted to the analysis of basic technical and methodological aspects. In this context, the most important sources of possible biases and distortions for calculation and use of journal citation measures are studied. Thereafter, main characteristics of application contexts are summarised. The last section is concerned with questions of statistical reliability of journal citation measures. It is shown that in contrast to a common misbelief statistical methods can be applied to discrete "skewed" distributions, and that the statistical reliability of these statistics can be used as a basis for application of journal impact measures in comparative analyses. Finally, the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of a single, howsoever complex measure for characterising the citation impact of scientific journals is discussed.


Impact Factor Citation Rate Journal Citation Report Citation Impact Journal Impact Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allison, P. (1980), Inequality of scientific productivity, Social Studies of Science, 10: 163-179.Google Scholar
  2. Asai, I. (1981), Adjusted age distribution and its application to Impact Factor and Immediacy Index, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32:172-174.Google Scholar
  3. Braun, T., GlÄnzel, W. (1995), On a source of error in computing Journal Impact Factors, Chemical Intelligencer, January, 31-32.Google Scholar
  4. Braun, T., GlÄnzel, W., Schubert, A. (1989), Some data on the distribution of journal publication types in the Science Citation Index Database, Scientometrics, 15: 325-330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garfield, E. (1972), Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation, Science, 178: 471-479.Google Scholar
  6. Garfield, E., Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Applications in Science, Technology and Humanities, New York: Wiley, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Garfield, E. (1986), The evolution of physical chemistry to chemical physics, Current Contents, 3: 3-12.Google Scholar
  8. Garfield, E. (1987), Why are the impacts of leading medical journal so similar yet so different: Item-by-item audits reveal a diversity of editorial materials, Current Contents, January 12.Google Scholar
  9. Geller, N. L. (1978), Citation influence methodology of Pinski and Narin, Information Processing and Management, 14: 93-95.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. GlÄnzel, W., Schubert, A. (1988), Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact, Journal of Information Science, 14: 123-127.Google Scholar
  11. GlÄnzel, W., Schubert, A. (1995), Predictive aspects of a stochastic model for citation processes, Information Processing & Management, 31: 69-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. GlÄnzel, W., Schoepflin, U. (1994), A stochastic model for the ageing analyses of scientific literature, Scientometrics, 30: 49-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. GlÄnzel, W., Schoepflin, U. (1995), A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature, Journal of Information Science, 21: 37-53.Google Scholar
  14. Hirst, G. (1978), Discipline Impact Factor: a method for determining core journal lists, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29: 171-172.Google Scholar
  15. Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B., Wormell, I. (2000), Applying diachronous citation analysis to research program evaluations, In: Cronin, B., Atkins, H. B. (Eds). The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, Medford, N. J.: Information Today, Inc. & American Society for Information Science, pp. 373-387.Google Scholar
  16. Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B., Rousseau, R., Russell., J. (2001), The publication-citation matrix and its derived quantities, Chinese Science Bulletin, 46: 524-528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindsey, D. (1978), Corrected quality ratio: A composite index of scientific contribution to knowledge, Social Studies of Science, 8: 349-354.Google Scholar
  18. Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, Th. N. (1995), Improving the accuracy of the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Impact Factor, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46: 461-467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, Th. N. (1996), Impact Factors can mislead, Nature, 381: 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, Th. N., Reedijk, J. (1996), A critical analysis of the Journal Impact Factors of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society: Inaccuracies in published impact factors based on overall citations only, Scientometrics, 37: 105-115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moed, H.F., van Leeuwen, Th. N., Reedijk, J. (1998), A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54: 387-419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moed, H.F., van Leeuwen, Th. N., Reedijk, J. A. (1999), Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact, Scientometrics, 46: 575-589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pinski, G., Narin, F. (1976), Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications, Information Processing and Management, 12: 297-312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Price, D. J. de Solla ( 1970), Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and non-science, In: C. E. Nelson, D. K. Pollak (Eds), Communication among Scientists and Engineers (Heat, Lexington, Mass. pp. 1-12.Google Scholar
  25. Rousseau, R. (1988), Citation distribution of pure mathematics journals. In: L. Egghe, R. Rousseau (Eds), Informetrics 87/88, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., pp. 249-260.Google Scholar
  26. Schubert, A., GlÄnzel W. (1983), Statistical reliability of comparisons based on the citation impact of scientific publications, Scientometrics, 5: 59-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schubert, A., GlÄnzel, W. (1986), Mean response time. A new indicator of journal citation speed with application to physics journals, Czechoslovakian Journal of Physics, B 36: 121-125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schubert, A., GlÄnzel, W., Braun, T. (1987), Subject field characteristic citation scores and scales for assessing research performance, Scientometrics, 12: 267-291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schubert, A., GlÄnzel, W., Braun, T. (1989), Scientometric Datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major fields and subfields 1981-1985, Scientometrics, 16: 3-478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seglen, P. O. (1997), Citations and Journal Impact Factors: Questionable indicators of research quality, Allergy, 52: 1050-1056.Google Scholar
  31. Smart, J. C., Elton, C. F. (1982), Consumption factor scores of psychology journals, Scientometrics, 4: 349-360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Todorov, R. (1983), Condensed matter physics journals, Scientometrics, 5: 291-301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Todorov, R., GlÄnzel, W. (1988), Journal citation measures: A concise review, Journal of Information Science, 14: 47-56.Google Scholar
  34. Tomer, C. (1986), A statistical assessment of two measures of citation: the impact factor and the immediacy index, Information Processing and Management, 22: 251-258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Leeuwen, Th. N., Moed, H. F., Reedijk, J. (1997), JACS still topping Angewandte Chemie: Beware of erroneous impact factors, Chemical Intelligencer, July, 32-36.Google Scholar
  36. Wallace, D. P. (1986), The relationship between journal productivity and obsolescence, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37: 136-145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yanovsky, V. I. (1981), Citation analysis significance of scientific journals, Scientometrics, 3: 223-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Glänzel
    • 1
  • Henk F. Moed
    • 2
  1. 1.ISSRU E-mailBudapest
  2. 2.Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)Leiden UniversityRB LeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations