Impact of the impact factor in biomedical research: Its use and misuse

Singapore Medical Journal

Volumn 50, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 752-755

  Kumar, V ^a   Upadhyay, S ^a   Medhi, Bikash ^b  

^a PANJAB UNIVERSITY   (India)

^b POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH   (India)

Author keywords

Impact factor; Institute for Scientific Information; Journal Citation Report; Science Citation Index

Indexed keywords

CITATION ANALYSIS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; VALIDITY;

BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 70349286789     PISSN: 00375675     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 1966; 313: 411-413
2. Rey-Rocha J, Martín-Sempere MJ, Martínez-Frías J, López-Vera F. Some misuses of journal impact factor in research evaluation. Cortex 2001; 37:595-597
3. Brähler E, Beutel M, Decker O. [Deep impact-evaluation in the sciences]. Soz Praventivmed 2004; 49:10-14 German.
4. Brähler E, Decker O. Der Impaktfactor: Erbsenzählerei oder ein valides Instrument zur Leistungsmessung? J Dtsch Ges Plast Wiederherstellungschir 2002; 14:9-12. German.
5. Frömter E, Brähler E, Langenbeck U, Meenen NM, Usadel KH. [The AWMF model for the evaluation of published research papers in medicine. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der wissenschaftlichen medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (Working Group of the Scientific Medical Specialty Societies)]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1999; 124:910-915 German.
6. Brähler E, Decker O, Bokenhagen A. Das Wahre, Schöne, Gute oder schöne, gute Ware? Psyche 2001; 54:1245-1252 German.
7. Garfield E. Uses and misuses of citation frequency. Curr Contents 1985; 43:3-9.
8. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 1951; 193:265-275
9. Smith R. Commentary: the power of the unrelenting impact factor - is it a force for good or harm? Int J Epidemiol 2006; 35:1129-1130
10. Moed HF. The impact-factors debate: the ISI's uses and limits. Nature 2002; 415:731-732
11. Pfeifer MP, Snodgrass GL. The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA 1990; 263:1420-1423 (Pubitemid 20069951)
12. Gabehart ME. An analysis of citations to retracted articles in the scientific literature. Available at: hdl.handle.net/1901/199. Accessed September 3, 2006.
13. Adam D. The counting house. Nature 2002; 415:726-729
14. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research? BMJ 1997; 314:497-502.
15. Krell FT. Why impact factors don't work for taxonomy? Nature 2002; 415:957.
16. EU eliminates citation gap with America. Nature 1997; 387:537.
17. Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 1968; 159:56-63.
18. Bonitz M, Scharnmorst A. [Science and economy]. In: Parthey H, Spur G, eds. [Science and Innovation]. Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch 2001. Berlin: Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung, 2002: 85-96. German.
19. Adams J. Benchmarking international research. Nature 1998; 396:615-618
20. Al-Awqati Q. Impact factors and prestige. Kidney Int 2007; 71:183-185
21. Bollen J, Rodriguez MA, Van de Sompel H. Journal status. Available at: www.arxiv.org/abs/csGL10601030. Accessed June 12, 2006.
22. Rey-Rocha J, Martin-Sempere MJ, Lopez-Vera F, Martinez-Frias J. English versus Spanish in science evaluation. Nature 1999; 397:14. (Pubitemid 29038226)
23. Kimley S. Limitations of Science Citation Index data in evaluating journals and scientists in Geology. Proceedings of the 28th Meeting of the Geosciences Information Society, October 25-28, 1993. Boston: Geosciences Information Society, 1994: 23-31.
24. John E. Measuring journals. Notices 2006; Version 14.0.
25. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102:16569-16572
26. Linardi PM, Coelho PM, Coster HM. The "impact factor" as a criterion for the quality of scientific production is a relative, not absolute measure. Braz J Med Biol Res 1996, 29; 555-561
27. Coelho PM, Antunes CM, Coster HM, et al. The use and misuse of the "impact factor" as a parameter for evaluation of scientific publication quality: a proposal to rationalize its application. Braz J Med Biol Res 2003; 36:1605-1612