Impact factors: Use and abuse in biomedical research

Impact factors are increasingly being used as measures in the process of academic evaluation; however, the pitfalls associated with such use of impact factors are not always appreciated. Impact factors have limited use as criteria in determining the quality of scientific research. Classical anatomists may be actively discriminated against if journal impact factors are used as measures of scientific merit in comparison with colleagues in more popular or faster‐moving disciplines such as molecular biology. Research evaluation based on citation rates and journal impact factors is inappropriate, unfair, and an increasing source of frustration. Anat. Rec. (New Anat.): 257:54–57, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  Johannes Stegmann,et al.  How to evaluate journal impact factors , 1997, Nature.

[2]  P M Linardi,et al.  The "impact factor" as a criterion for the quality of scientific production is a relative, not absolute, measure. , 1996, Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas.

[3]  P. Seglen,et al.  Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. , 1998, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[4]  D. Schoonbaert,et al.  Citation analysis for measuring the value of scientific publications: quality assessment tool or comedy of errors? , 1996, Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH.

[5]  E. Garfield Fortnightly Review: How can impact factors be improved? , 1996 .

[6]  Richard Smith,et al.  Journal accused of manipulating impact factor , 1997 .

[7]  P. Seglen,et al.  Education and debate , 1999, The Ethics of Public Health.

[8]  A Linde,et al.  On the pitfalls of journal ranking by Impact Factor. , 1998, European journal of oral sciences.

[9]  Dirk Schoonbaert,et al.  Impact takes precedence over interest , 1998, Nature.