Are Impact Factors corrupting truth and utility in biomedical research?

Vaccine

Volumn 31, Issue 51, 2013, Pages 6041-6042

  Suhrbier, Andreas ^a   Poland, Gregory A ^b  

^a QIMR BERGHOFER MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Australia)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; EDITORIAL; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOTIVATION; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; UNEMPLOYMENT;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 84888438831     PISSN: 0264410X     EISSN: 18732518     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.09.076     Document Type: Editorial

References (15)

1. Herbert D.L., Barnett A.G., Clarke P., Graves N. On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open 2013, 3.
2. Calvert N., Ashton J.R., Garnett E. Mumps outbreak in private schools: public health lessons for the post-Wakefield era. Lancet 2013, 381:1625-1626.
3. Zhou J., Sun X.Y., Stenzel D.J., Frazer I.H. Expression of vaccinia recombinant HPV 16 L1 and L2 ORF proteins in epithelial cells is sufficient for assembly of HPV virion-like particles. Virology 1991, 185:251-257.
4. Sanger F., Coulson A.R. A rapid method for determining sequences in DNA by primed synthesis with DNA polymerase. J Mol Biol 1975, 94:441-448.
5. Lozano G. The demise of the Impact Factor: the strength of the relationship between citation rates and IF is down to levels last seen 40 years ago 2013, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2012/06/08/demise-impact-factor-relationship-citation-1970s/ [accessed 2013].
6. Van Noorden R. Record number of journals banned for boosting impact factor with self-citations 2013, Nature News Blog; http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/06/record-number-of-journals-banned-for-boosting-impact-factor-with-self-citations.html [accessed 2013].
7. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. [accessed 2013]. http://am.ascb.org/dora/.
8. Lipsky P.E. The lack of impact of the 'impact factor' in clinical medicine. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2007, 3:189.
9. NHMRC removes journal impact factors from peer review of individual research grant and fellowship applications. [accessed 2013]. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/grants/peer/impact%20factors%20in%20peer%20review.pdf.
10. Begley C.G., Ellis L.M. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 2012, 483:531-533.
11. Prinz F., Schlange T., Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011, 10:712.
12. Fang F.C., Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun 2011, 79:3855-3859.
13. Steen R.G., Casadevall A., Fang F.C. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e68397.
14. Spier R., Poland G.A. What is excellent science and how does it relate to what we publish in vaccine?. Vaccine 2013 September 5.
15. Horizon 2020 The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/press/horizon2020-presentation.pdf [accessed 2013].