The journal impact factor in the evaluation of research quality: Villain, scapegoat or innocent bystander?

Sozial- und Praventivmedizin

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 19-22

  Zwahlen, Marcel ^a   Junker, Christoph ^a   Egger, Matthias ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BYSTANDER EFFECT; GERMANY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PSYCHOMETRY; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIBLIOMETRICS; GERMANY; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH;

EID: 1542359966     PISSN: 03038408     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00038-003-0033-2     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Adams D (2002). The counting house. Nature 415: 726-9.
2. Brooks TA (1985). Private acts and public objects: an investigation of citer motivations. J Am Soc Inform Sci 36: 223-9.
3. Decker O, Beutel ME, Brähler E (2004). Deep impact - evaluation in the sciences. Soz Praventiv Med 49: 10-4.
4. Egger M, Dickersin K, Smith DG (2001a). Problems and limitations in conducting systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Smith DG, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books: 43-68.
5. Egger M, Smith DG (1998). Meta-analysis: bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 316: 61-6.
6. Egger M, Smith DG, O'Rourke K (2001b). Rationale, potentials and promise of systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Smith DG, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books: 23-42.
7. Flanders WD, O'Brien TR (1989). Inappropriate comparisons of incidence and prevalence in epidemiologic research. Am J Public Health 79: 1301-3.
8. Garfield E (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178: 471-9.
9. Garfield E (1984). How to use citation analysis for faculty evaluations, and when is it relevant? Essays of an information scientist. Philadelphia: ISI Press: 354-72.
10. Garfield E (1996). How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 313: 411-3.
11. Institute for Scientific Information. http://sunweb.isinet.com/isi/search/glossary/
12. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M (2002). Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 31: 115-23.
13. Last JM (2001). A dictionary of epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.
14. Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA (2002). Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA 287: 2805-8.
15. Schubert A, Braun T (1996). Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 36: 311-24.
16. Seglen P (1992). The skewness of science. J Am Soc Inform Sci 43: 628-38.
17. Seglen PO (1997). Why the impact of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314: 497-502.
18. Tapia Granados JA (1997). On the terminology and dimensions of incidence. J Clin Epidemiol 50: 891-7.
19. Tomlinson S (2000). The research assessment exercise and medical research. BMJ 320: 636-9.
20. United Kingdom Research Assessment Exercise. http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae