Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research

Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica

Volumn 69, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 224-229

  Seglen, Per O ^a,b  

^a Inst Studs Res and Higher Educ   (Norway)

^b OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA BASE; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORTHOPEDICS; PUBLICATION;

EID: 0031850626     PISSN: 00016470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17453679809000920     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 1981; 214: 881-886.
2. Ernst E, Saradeth T, Resch KL. Drawbacks of peer review. Nature 1993; 363: 296.
3. Hansen HF, Jørgensen BH. Styring af forskning: Kan forskningsindikatorer anvendes? Frederiksberg, Denmark, Samfundslitteratur; 1995: 1-204.
4. Taubes G. Measure for measure in science. Science 1943; 260: 884-886.
5. Andersen H. ACTA Sociologica på den internationale arena - hvad kan SSCI fortælle? Dansk Sociologi 1996; 2: 72-78.
6. Moed HF, Burger WJM, Frankfort JG, Van Raan AFJ. On the Measurement of Research Performance: The Use of Bibliometric Indicators. Leiden, Science Studies Unit, LISBON-Institule, University of Leiden; 1987:1-199.
7. Korevaar JC, Moed HF. Validation of bibliometric indicators in the field of mathematics. Scientometrics 1996; 37: 117-130.
8. Moed HF, Burger WJM, Frankfort JG, Van Raan AFJ. The application of hibliometric indicators: important field- and time-dependent factors to be considered. Scientometrics 1985; 8: 177-203.
9. Sivertsen G. Norsk Forskning på den Internasjonale Arena. En Sammenlikning av 18 OECD-lands Artikler og Siteringer i Science Citation Index 1973-86, Oslo, Inst.Stud.Res.Higher Educat.; 1991: 1-90.
10. Andersen H. Tidsskriftpublicering og forskningsevaluering. Biblioteksarbejde 1996; 17: 19-26.
11. Anus HM. Science indicators derived from databases. Scientometrics 1996; 37: 297-311.
12. Lange L. Effects of disciplines and countries on citation habits. An analysis of empirical papers in behavioural sciences. Scientometrics 1985; 8:205-215.
13. Narin F, Hamilton KS. Bibliometric performance measures. Scientometrics 1996; 36: 293-310.
14. Braun T, Glänzel W, Grupp H. The scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 science areas. 1989-1993. Part II. Life sciences. Scientometrics 1996; 34: 207-237.
15. Møller AP. National citations. Nature 1990; 348: 480.
16. Wade N. Citation analysis: A new tool for science administrators. Science 1975; 188:429-433.
17. Evans JT, Nadjari HI, Burchell SA. Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals. A continuing peer review problem. J Am Med Ass 1990;263:1353-1354.
18. Seglen PO. Kan siteringsanalyse og andre bibliometriske metoder brukes til evaluering av forskningskvalitet? NOP-Nytt (Helsingfors) 1989; 15: 2-20.
19. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Problems of citation analysis: a critical review. J Am Soc Information Sci 1989; 40: 342-349.
20. Hamilton DP. Research papers: Who's uncited now. Science 1991; 251: 25.
21. Gomperts MC. The law of constant citation for scientific literature. J Documentation 1968; 24: 113-117.
22. Seglen PO. Bruk av siteringsanalyse og andre bibliometriske meloder i evaluering av forskningsaktivitet. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1989; 31: 3229-3234.
23. Hargens LL, Felmlee DH. Structural determinants of stratification in science. Am Sociol Rev 1984; 49: 685-697.
24. Vinkler P. Relationships between the rate of scientific development and citations. The chance for a citedness model. Scientometrics 1996; 35: 375-386.
25. Narin F, Pinski G, Gee HH. Structure of the biomedical literature. J Am Soc Inform Sci 1976: 27: 25-45.
26. Folly G, Hajtman B, Nagy JI, Ruff I. Some methodological problems in ranking scientists by citation analysis. Scientometrics 1981; 3: 135-147.
27. Seglen PO. Evaluation of scientists by journal impact, in Weingart P, Sehringer R, Winterhager M (eds): Representations of Science and Technology. Leiden, DSWO Press; 1992:240-252.
28. Lewison G, Anderson J, Jack J. Assessing track records. Nature 1995; 377: 671.
29. Vinkler P. Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators. Scientometrics 1996; 36: 223-236.
30. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 1972; 178: 471-479.
31. Vinkler P. Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics 1986; 10: 157-177.
32. Magri M-H. Solari A. The SCI Journal Citation Reports: A potential tool for studying journals? I. Description of the JCR journal population based on the number of citations received, number of source items, impact factor, immediacy index and cited half-life. Scientometrics 1996; 35: 93-117.
33. Moed HF, Van Leeuwen TN, Reedijk J. 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 1996; 37: 105-116.
34. Moed HF, Van Leeuwen TN. Impact factors can mislead. Nature 1996; 381: 186.
35. Bourke P, Butler L. Standard issues in a national bibliometric database: the Australian case. Scientometrics 1996; 35: 199-207.
36. Hayes SC. When more is less: Quantity versus quality of publications in the evaluation of academic vitae. Am Psychologist 1983; 38: 1398-1400.
37. Sengupta IN. Three new parameters in bibliometric research and their application to rerank periodicals in the field of biochemistry. Scientometrics 1986;10:235-242.
38. Semenza G. Editorial. FEBS Lett 1996; 389: 1-2.
39. Metcalfe NB. Journal impact factors. Nature 1995; 377: 260-261.
40. Sorokin NI. Impact factors of Russian journals. Nature 1996; 380: 578.
41. Seglen PO. Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. J Am Soc Information Sci 1994; 45: 1-11.
42. Opthof T. Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovascular Res 1997; 33: 1-7.
43. Gordon MD. How authors select journals: A test of the reward maximization model of submission behaviour. Social Studies of Science 1984; 14: 27-43.
44. Seglen PO. The skewness of science. J Am Soc Information Sci 1992; 43: 628-638.