Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices

Abstract

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been used in assessing scientific journals. Other indices, h- and g-indices and Article Influence Score (AIS), have been developed to overcome some limitations of JIF. The aims of this study were, first, to critically assess the use of JIF and other parameters related to medical education research, and second, to discuss the capacity of these indices in assessing research productivity as well as their utility in academic promotion. The JIF of 16 medical education journals from 2000 to 2011 was examined together with the research evidence about JIF in assessing research outcomes of medical educators. The findings were discussed in light of the nonnumerical criteria often used in academic promotion. In conclusion, JIF was not designed for assessing individual or group research performance, and it seems unsuitable for such purposes. Although the g- and h-indices have demonstrated promising outcomes, further developments are needed for their use as academic promotion criteria. For top academic positions, additional criteria could include leadership, evidence of international impact, and contributions to the advancement of knowledge with regard to medical education.

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis

“…40 In the current academic climate, the count of an individual's citations are usually factored into faculty promotion and tenure decisions. 41,42 Also, from an editor's perspective, journals are typically judged by their impact factor, a citation-based metric. In both cases, this emphasis on citations may make it difficult for authors and editors to pass up the opportunity to write and publish a review article that stands to accrue up to three times as many citations as another article type.…”

Changing paradigm in the scientific publication process: Are we encouraging Science or Pseudoscience? Urgent need for introspection and self regulation

“…16,17 Not surprisingly, the impact factor obsession is prevalent amongst most of the stakeholders including even regulatory bodies and funding agencies. A medical journal, or even an article, published in a professional journal should be judged by its readers after reading it rather than basing impressions primarily on the calculated impact factor.…”

Tendencies on Traditional Metrics

“…For example, the reviews accumulate a higher number of citations than the original articles that attract more citations than the casereports, which are rarely cited. At the same time, a series of document types -for example editorials, letters -cannot attract citations, but can generate citations (18).…”