Although, according to Dr. Lockshin, the definition of “citable” is arbitrary, because journals are not uniform in article structure, he takes exception to the PLoS view. “Allowing for the many variations of journal and citation style, we judge that [the Thomson process] is an honest and fair attempt, and as sound as any we could devise, to rate journals by an open and explicable metric,” he says.
Perhaps the most resonant argument is that IF does not take into account the quality of the work in individual articles or the utility of a journal to readers. Citations may come from controversy, retractions, and authors who refute the findings of an article. Antony Rosen, MD, director of the rheumatology division at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and chair of the ACR Journal Publications Committee, views IF in a pragmatic light. “In terms of relevance, quality, and importance, there are lots of useful articles that never get cited,” Dr. Rosen says. “Impact factor is just one measure of a journal, nothing more.”
Francine Kaplan is a medical journalist based in Atlanta.
References
- Garfield E. The Agony and the Ecstasy: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Chicago, September 16, 2005.
- Braun T, Glänzel W, Grupp H. The scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 science areas, 1989–1993. Part II. Life sciences. Scientometrics. 1996;34:207-237.
- The Impact Factor Game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Med. 2006;3(6):e291.
