Never mind the impact factor: Colleagues know better!

Learned Publishing

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 63-65

  Hartley, James ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70749148920     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/20100111     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Pinfield, S. 2009. Journals and repositories: an evolving relationship? Learned Publishing, 22: 165-75. doi:10.1087/2009302
2. The definition of an impact factor can seem a little complicated. As an example, the 2008 impact factor for a journal is essentially the number of citations that the 2006 and 2007 papers in the journal receives, in 2008, from all journals in the database, divided by the number of items published in 2006 and 2007. Journal impact factors are thus revised very year, and there is much debate as to what counts as an article, and how editors/authors can increase the impact factors of their journals (see note 4 below). To be able to cite an impact factor for a particular journal it has to be included in a particular electronic database - and many journals in the arts and socials sciences are not. Impact factors can also be calculated over a five-year period (which is perhaps more appropriate for the social sciences) but a problem arises here if a journal changes its name in the intervening period. More sophisticated impact factors are also being developed (see note 5 below).
3. The citation rate for a particular article is the number of times it has been cited since it was published. This number can include self-citations (by the same author) and rebuttals by others as well as commendations or inclusion for the sake of completion. Review articles generally receive more citations than do experimental ones (as do articles with multiple references rather than a few), but reviews are not likely to be judged of high quality in the REF. Again citation rates are only available for those articles that are included in specific databases. Many are not.
4. Hartley, J. Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Handbook. Abingdon, Routledge, 2008.
5. Stock, W.G. 2009. The inflation of impact factors of scientific journals. ChemPhysChem, 10: 2193-6. doi:10.1002/cphc.200900495
6. Kostoff, R.N. and Hartley, J. 2001. Structured abstracts for technical journals. Science, 29 (May): 1067. doi:10.1126/science.292.5519.1067a
7. Hartley, J. 1991. Tabling information. American Psychologist, 46: 655-66. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.6.655
8. Hartley, J. and Jory, S. 2001. Lifting the veil on the viva: the experiences of psychology PhD candidates in the UK. Psychology Teaching Review, 9: 76-90.
9. Hartley, J. 2004. Applying psychology to text design: a personal view. Information Design Journal & Document Design, 12: 91-102.
10. Hartley, J. 2005. Is academic writing masculine? Higher Education Review, 37: 53-62.
11. Hartley, J. and Branthwaite, A.J. (eds). The Applied Psychologist. Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 2000.