Impact factor: Myths and realities

Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 429-432

  Rogers, Lee F ^a  

^a American Journal of Roentgenology   (United States)

Author keywords

Faculty assessment; Faculty publications; Impact factor

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SCHOOL; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0141670458     PISSN: 03044602     EISSN: 29724066     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. Grange R I. National bias in citations in urology journals: parochialism or availability? BJU Int 1999; 84:601-3.
2. Seglen P O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997; 314:498-502.
3. Smith R. Unscientific practice flourishes in science. BMJ 1998; 316:1036.
4. Hecht F, Hecht B K, Sandberg A A. The journal "impact factor": a misnamed, misleading, misused measure. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1998; 104:77-81.
5. Opthof T. Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovasc Res 1997; 33:1-7.
6. Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 1996; 313:411-3.
7. Whitehouse G H. Citation rates and impact factors: should they matter? Br J Radiol 2001; 74:1-3.
8. Rogers L F. Impact factor: the numbers game. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178:541-2.
9. Chew F S. The scientific literature in diagnostic radiology for American readers: a survey and analysis of journals, papers, and authors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986; 147:1055-61.
10. Smith R. Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. BMJ 1997; 314:461.
11. Hemmingsson A, Mygind T, Skjennald A, Edgren J. Manipulation of impact factors by editors of scientific journals [letter]. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178:767.
12. Garfield E. How to use citation analysis for faculty evaluations, and when is it relevant? Parts I and 2. In: Essays of an Information Scientist. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1984:354-72.