Criticism of the Journal Impact Factor

• The Journal Impact Factor was originally developed to assist libraries in selecting the best journals to subscribe to in their subject areas. That means it is ultimately a tool for evaluating academic journals. However, nowadays it is used to evaluate the research work of scientists and academics.
• The frequency with which articles are cited is often taken as an indicator of a journal's quality, but this is far from being an accurate measurement. Citation frequency can only be interpreted as an indication of a scholarly article's impact, and not as a solid assessment of the quality of the results themselves.
• The Journal Citation Reports with the Journal Impact Factors for each year are always issued in the summer of the following year and are based on the two years that precede the reporting year. For example, the JIF for a journal for the year 2013 is calculated by counting the number of citations in 2013 to articles from journal issues in 2012 and 2011 divided by the number of articles that actually appeared in the journal in 2012 and 2011. The numerator in this function includes citations to every single article that appeared in the journal over the course of those two years, but the denominator only includes certain types of articles. 
• A Journal Impact Factor of 1.9 means that each article from 2012 and 2011 was cited an average of 1.9 times in 2013. But since the JIF is based on only a certain percentage of the articles that actually appeared, this method of taking the arithmetic mean is actually statistically inappropriate. In reality, few articles will have been cited more frequently than 1.9 times, and many of the articles will have been cited more infrequently than that, or indeed not at all. Thus, the JIF says nothing about the frequency with which an individual article has been cited.
• In addition, the JIF is not 'normalised' across disciplines, in other words it does not take into account differing field-dependent factors of citation analysis from one discipline to the next. This invalidates comparisons of journal JIFs across disciplines. And citation behaviour can vary even within the different fields of research of one discipline, so there is limited use in even comparing the JIFs of journals in the same discipline. 
• The default citation window of two years which is taken as a basis for the calculations is too short to judge the impact of publications in many disciplines. In some disciplines it takes longer for scientific results to be viewed and assessed. Even the additional citation window of five years which is used in the Journal Citation Reports is still too short for some disciplines, especially those in the social sciences and humanities, though it is probably acceptable for life sciences.
• The Journal Impact Factor is also susceptible to manipulation, because it can be artificially boosted by journals citing their own articles.
• The citation impact of a journal also depends on which types of documents it publishes. For example, review articles are cited significantly more frequently than other types of documents. Thus, journals that publish lots of review articles can increase their citation count and raise their impact factor. [https://www.publisso.de/en/advice/publishing-advice-faqs/the-journal-impact-factor-and-alternatives/]

I never paid attention to ratings that are subjective and manipulated.

In the initial phase of my research career, I never thought about impact factor of a journal. But now I always wish to publish my work preferrably in SCI/impact factor/scopus indexed journals only. Since everyone asks about the impact of journal and it's reputation. Impact factor certainly indicates the reputation of a journal up to some extent.

Many thanks Drs Amir and Mahesh for your diverse opinions.

I can understand that why some researchers care about IF, others may not. Thanks once again!

Criticism of the Journal Impact Factor

• The Journal Impact Factor was originally developed to assist libraries in selecting the best journals to subscribe to in their subject areas. That means it is ultimately a tool for evaluating academic journals. However, nowadays it is used to evaluate the research work of scientists and academics.
• The frequency with which articles are cited is often taken as an indicator of a journal's quality, but this is far from being an accurate measurement. Citation frequency can only be interpreted as an indication of a scholarly article's impact, and not as a solid assessment of the quality of the results themselves.
• The Journal Citation Reports with the Journal Impact Factors for each year are always issued in the summer of the following year and are based on the two years that precede the reporting year. For example, the JIF for a journal for the year 2013 is calculated by counting the number of citations in 2013 to articles from journal issues in 2012 and 2011 divided by the number of articles that actually appeared in the journal in 2012 and 2011. The numerator in this function includes citations to every single article that appeared in the journal over the course of those two years, but the denominator only includes certain types of articles. 
• A Journal Impact Factor of 1.9 means that each article from 2012 and 2011 was cited an average of 1.9 times in 2013. But since the JIF is based on only a certain percentage of the articles that actually appeared, this method of taking the arithmetic mean is actually statistically inappropriate. In reality, few articles will have been cited more frequently than 1.9 times, and many of the articles will have been cited more infrequently than that, or indeed not at all. Thus, the JIF says nothing about the frequency with which an individual article has been cited.
• In addition, the JIF is not 'normalised' across disciplines, in other words it does not take into account differing field-dependent factors of citation analysis from one discipline to the next. This invalidates comparisons of journal JIFs across disciplines. And citation behaviour can vary even within the different fields of research of one discipline, so there is limited use in even comparing the JIFs of journals in the same discipline. 
• The default citation window of two years which is taken as a basis for the calculations is too short to judge the impact of publications in many disciplines. In some disciplines it takes longer for scientific results to be viewed and assessed. Even the additional citation window of five years which is used in the Journal Citation Reports is still too short for some disciplines, especially those in the social sciences and humanities, though it is probably acceptable for life sciences.
• The Journal Impact Factor is also susceptible to manipulation, because it can be artificially boosted by journals citing their own articles.
• The citation impact of a journal also depends on which types of documents it publishes. For example, review articles are cited significantly more frequently than other types of documents. Thus, journals that publish lots of review articles can increase their citation count and raise their impact factor. [https://www.publisso.de/en/advice/publishing-advice-faqs/the-journal-impact-factor-and-alternatives/]

It works in both sides. To some it hampers scholarly publications while to some serve as a positive force behind high quality research output because of the calibre of researchers and the content of their research. This may not be so in all cases.

Many thanks Dr Oluwaseun for your insightful answer.

Thank you so much Drs Vishnu and Karthik for your contributions.

It is said that high IF journals have wider exposures and more rigorous peer reviewing standards. This is justifiable to some extent, influencing the journal choice of many scholars. In fact, in many institutions, IF journals are required for PhD thesis acceptance as well as staff promotions.

However, the quality and rigor of a scientific research lies in the main caveats of a particular research paper and not the IF of the journal.

When the quality is not compromised, a sound research sails to the ends of the academic and industrial worlds.

Dear Dr. Emeka W. Dumbili

Greetings

To start with, and when we started our write-up and publishing, we were just thinking of the proper paper construction. I think no one thought of choosing high-standard journals in his first few steps!

When your name grows up, you would certainly like to enrich your CV by having your articles published in Scopus and/or Thombsons' Reuters.

This kind of journals is highly exposed to readers and possess a high reputation. This would ensure a large number of citations to your papers

Off course! I believe that impact factor is important for scholarly publishing and it helps to researchers for getting more citation for their paper. I also agree with you that few journals might be manipulating their citations.

IF determines the productivity allowance of a researcher by HEC. there should be alternatives of this

Good question and Informative answers thank you all

Following

Quantification is about economization, not about quality.

However, to build the quality of a hill, also quantity is needed.

Even a good researcher will need many attempts to arrive at the top of the hill.

Many thanks Dr Dickson for your very insightful answer. IF is good but should not be the only criterion to judge papers.

Thanks so much Prof Stephen for your comment. I can perceive that you are taking both sides.

Thanks Prof Arben for your answer. Inasmuch as IF is great, scientists must not solely rely on it to measure the quality of scholarly output.

h-index of a journal is better, less hamper if any.

I think that there is one train of thought that has not been discussed as to whether or not the IF impacts science and/scholarly publishing. That being whether or not scientists limit their attempts to submit their manuscripts to only those with high IF ratings. Personally, finding a journal that is interested in your article and is the best credible representation of your work is important but not the ultimate deciding factor in where I publish. Several years ago, I published in a little known journal at the time that was building credibility. They have since advanced on Scopus and other indexes because they were publishing good and meaningful manuscripts. Ultimately, if you publish good work, that is a reward unto itself. But the number of citations is not always the best measure of a work product or subject matter expertise. For example, one of my most cited publications is on the topic of energy policy in Turkey. While I like to consider myself well-versed in governance, I am not a major authority in energy or the country of Turkey. Yet, academic institutions have been more interested in that publication vs. the subject matter that I hold more strength, training, and education applied to actual work environment----biomedical engineering and quality management. So, while scholars may not care about the IF and citations, there are others who make this an important criteria. Unfortunately, that is the nature of the beast in some disciplines.

That, of course, brings up the topic of academic disciplines which are increasingly blending with others while journals have maintained traditional definitions. For example, being a health policy generalist as I am is very different from being someone with specialty in human genome, elderly care, or disease management where there are targeted journals. But as disciplines continue to morph into cross-functional and interdisciplinary functions, journals may have to reconsider their scope and become more open to innovative topics (perhaps even include a section on tangential topics), to accommodate this changing paradigm. If so, then there may be a greater interest in the IF and any research author decision to consider it as an influential factor in publication.

Thank you so much Beth Ann for your detailed and explicit comment. You have said it all. What should be our concern is quality research and not just IF. Thanks once again

I absolutly agree with Dr Mehesh Kumar as for the importance of the journal's reputation. The probelatic issue is the fact that their reputation is evaluated as the amount of quotations in other journals with IF. That limitation can make it unjust.

Thank you Beata for your comment.

Dear Dr Dumbili,

Can you assist me with the 2018 Thomson Reuters impact factor journal list?

Thank you.

Hi Elochukwu, I don't have it yet.

It is the desire of every researcher to have publications in journals with IF and much more high IF journals. Quality and original research is the only guarantee for this.

It will be bad therefore for any journal to manipulate and mislead researchers in their IF

Thanks Jumoke for your comment. The problem is that too much emphasis on IF may continue to result in such manipulations.

The current world of some scientific publishing is somewhere between a Circus and a Passarella. Alongside the number of shows, Impact Factor seems then indispensable. The bad news is that it seems that the many researchers, reviewers, editors and publishers conscientious/honest need to pretend not seeing/understanding this?

Market of Vanity?

Indeed, it appears to be a market of vanity. Thanks Prof Antonio.

Next discussion addresses the circumstance in which “an editor or others affiliated with a journal pressure an author to add citations from that journal for the implied purpose of increasing citation rates, and by extension, journal impact factor”...

https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/Forum%20discussion%20topic_final.pdf

https://publicationethics.org/news/case-discussion-editor-and-reviewers-requiring-authors-cite-their-own-work

Many thanks Professor Ljubomir for the links.

The impact factor is a fact of academic life.

Many academics do not seem to appreciate that it is a JOURNAL imp[act factor, and says little about any individual paper that is published.

Many thanks Michael for your comment.

I agree with @Uche Nnolim

To Emeka:

My pleasure.

Many thanks for asking a challenging question.

Since the impact factor was introduced,it was a controversial issue because many of critizers considered it as an inappropriate and non-scientific indicator. The impact factor is a general measure to assess the validity of a journal, but should be cautious about its use ...

http://www.donotedit.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-impact-factor/

There should be a measuring factor, however IF should change in the way it is compiled.

Not only the citations should be a measuring factor for IF, there should be included include factors like: time of estsblishment, rejected papers factor, anum of publishing, competences of editors etc.

Impakt-faktor began to have formal character. It does not reflect real authoritativeness of the magazine.