The Disaster of the Impact Factor

Moustafa, Khaled

doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9517-0

Cited by 78 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other criticism focuses on the effect of the impact factor on the behavior of scholars, editors and other stakeholders (van Wesel, 2016;Moustafa, 2015). The use of IF instead of actual article citation counts to evaluate individuals is a highly controversial issue.…”

Section: Pros and Cons Of Ifmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the relatively lax error checking by WoS, it is tempting to include a series of ghost articles in a review of this kind to demonstrate weaknesses of IF (Rieseberg et al, 2011). Some journal editors set their submissions policy as "by invitation only" to invite exclusively senior scientists to publish "citable" papers to increase IF (Moustafa, 2015). Journals may also attempt to limit the number of "citable items", that is, the denominator in IF, either by declining to publish articles (such as case reports in medical journals) that are unlikely to be cited, or by altering articles (by not allowing an abstract or biblography) in the hope that Thomson Scientific will not deem it a "citable item".…”

Section: Editorial Policies That Affect Ifmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pros and Cons of the Impact Factor in a Rapidly Changing Digital World

McAleer¹,

Oláh

Popp

2018

J. Rev. Global Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The purpose and novlty of the paper is to present arguments for and against the use of the Impact Factor (IF) in a rapidly changing digital world. The paper discusses the calculation of IF, as well as the pros and cons of IF. Editorial policies that affect IF are examined, and the merits of open access online publishing are presented. Scientific quality and the IF dilemma are analysed, and alternative measures of impact and quality are evaluated. The San Francisco declaration on research assessment is also discussed.

show abstract

Section: Pros and Cons Of Ifmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Editorial Policies That Affect Ifmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pros and Cons of the Impact Factor in a Rapidly Changing Digital World

McAleer¹,

Oláh

Popp

2018

J. Rev. Global Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…O cálculo do fator de impacto de um periódico talvez seja o emprego mais conhecido de técnicas bibliométricas nos dias de hoje e, certamente um dos mais antigos, pois começou a ser empregado já em 1975 (Garfield, 1998). A despeito das críticas endereçadas ao uso indiscriminado e possíveis vieses do fator de impacto (Editorial, 2016(Editorial, , 2015Moustafa, 2015;Brembs, Button e Munafò, 2013;Greenberg, 2009) sua utilização continua a crescer no âmbito universitário (Butler e McAllister, 2009;Russell, 2009;Weale, 2009). …”

Section: Balanços Bibliométricos Das Ciências Sociaisunclassified

50 Anos da Revista DADOS: Uma Análise Bibliométrica do seu Perfil Disciplinar e Temático

Campos

Júnior

Guarnieri

2017

Dados

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUÇÃO N o clássico A Estrutura das Revoluções Científicas, o filósofo ThomasKuhn argumenta que o uso de artigos como principal meio de comunicação científica é uma das características da "ciência normal" que a distingue das formas pré-paradigmáticas de produção de conhecimento (Kuhn, 1962:13). Hoje em dia, mais de meio século após a publicação do livro de Kuhn, as Ciências Sociais parecem ainda não ter atingido o pleno estágio paradigmático -há, na verdade, muitas razões para argumentar que elas não devam jamais atingi-lo (Veyne, 1998:174). É inegável, contudo, que a produção de artigos científicos tem se tornado mais e mais central nas Ciências Sociais. Várias são as causas que concorrem para esse fato, entre elas o crescimento contínuo da pesquisa e da pós-graduação, as induções institucionais e financeiras das agências de fomento, a estruturação da profissão em torno de critérios de produtividade e a mudança da cultura acadêmica, de formas mais aristocráticas para práticas mais democráticas de produção e circulação de conhecimento.

show abstract

“…3 In recent years, a discourse has emerged that favors article-level metrics or "altmetrics" and criticizes traditional journal-level metrics for conflating the impact of an article with the impact of the journal in which it was published. Other criticisms include journal-level metrics taking too long to generate and being easy to manipulate.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly Metrics Baseline: A Survey of Faculty Knowledge, Use, and Opinion about Scholarly Metrics

DeSanto¹,

Nichols²

2017

CRL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the results of a faculty survey conducted at the University of Vermont during academic year 2014-2015. The survey asked faculty about: familiarity with scholarly metrics, metric-seeking habits, help-seeking habits, and the role of metrics in their department's tenure and promotion process. The survey also gathered faculty opinions on how well scholarly metrics reflect the importance of scholarly work and how faculty feel about administrators gathering institutional scholarly metric information. Results point to the necessity of understanding the campus landscape of faculty knowledge, opinion, importance, and use of scholarly metrics before engaging faculty in further discussions about quantifying the impact of their scholarly work. aculty at our institution possess a range of attitudes, knowledge, and opinions about the metrics that purport to measure the impact and influence of their scholarship. While many faculty work in departments that require and emphasize traditional scholarly metrics in the reappointment, tenure, and promotion process (RPT), other departments use nontraditional measures that better fit their discipline, and still other departments rely almost exclusively on professional judgment. We sought to capture at the University of Vermont, a midsized research institution, a scan of our campus' faculty, not only to assess disciplinary differences, but also to put together a campuswide picture of how our faculty use, perceive, and understand scholarly metrics.Five guiding questions shaped our survey work:• How familiar are faculty with scholarly metrics?• How/why/when do they seek them out?• Where do faculty turn for help?• What role do scholarly metrics play in the tenure and promotion process?• What opinions and thoughts do faculty members have about how well these metrics reflect the impact of a scholar's work? These guiding questions served as the framework for our survey and also serve as the outline for this article's results section.

show abstract

The Disaster of the Impact Factor

Cited by 78 publications

References 10 publications

Pros and Cons of the Impact Factor in a Rapidly Changing Digital World

Pros and Cons of the Impact Factor in a Rapidly Changing Digital World

50 Anos da Revista DADOS: Uma Análise Bibliométrica do seu Perfil Disciplinar e Temático

Scholarly Metrics Baseline: A Survey of Faculty Knowledge, Use, and Opinion about Scholarly Metrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About