While I agree that UIF is not transparent in many ways (it is unclear who are the people behind and also the calculation of the UIF is not transparent) I am very astonished how blindly most colleagues in this discussion believe into the impact factor produced by ISI (Thomson-Reuters). The journal selection there is also completely intransparent!!! Who reallly does believe that there is any quality criterion behind the selection which journal is in ISI and which not??? This belief is quite naive. Evidently the ISI database is a money printing maschine for Thomson Reuters because institutions all around the world let themselves perceive that this is a kind of objective evaluation of science, and thus scientific libraries pay hells of lots of money for this service. But in fact, the very basis of the whole calculation is not driven by scientific criteria, but solely by economic ones. In the beginning, ISI had and extreme Anglo-American bias, and they still have, meaning that mediocre US journals are in, but better quality journals from elsewhere in the world not, let alone journals in other languages - and this simply because the main customers of ISI were in the US. When Scopus as competitor appeared and announced that they would have a much better journal coverage outside the Anglo-American realm (and indeed they have), ISI all of a sudden added hundreds of journals from such countries, too. Who believes that they all suddenly reached a better quality standard?

I would argue: we should really get rid off the assessing science quality based on non-scientific criteria, and be aware that the completely intransparent and profit-driven journal selection process behind the ISI Webbase that underlies the Thomson Reuters IF's is detrimental for good science. Scopus is already a move into a better direction, because the bias in the journal selection is much less pronounced - but still the problem is that the decision which journals to include and which not is made by a commercial firm. Therefore, Google Scholar Citations is a real step forward because they remove this intransparent and unfair filter that only citations in journals that are selected by a commercial firm to selected journals are counted. In Google Scholar Citations, simply all citations from scientists to scientist count, whether it is a journal article in English or in Arabic, a book or a book chapter.

So the logic thing that would bring a big advancement to the fair bibliometric assessment of scientists would be to calculate impact factors based on something like Google Scholar. This idea is behind UIF, and I believe that this idea is worth being supported by scientists all around the world in order to get rid of the commercial grip on bibliometric evaluation (which as we all know decides on thousands of scientific careers) by high-profit firms like Thomson-Reuters (WoS) and Elsevier (Scopus).

The bad thing is that UIF implements the excellent idea so far in a very poor manner. But I hope that the idea of UIF inspires others to do the same thing in a much better way.

Zero. Who are these people? They do not publish the calculation for the "Universal impact factor" which is suspicious and they have very few journals in their catalogue, none of which are top tier. I would not take these people seriously at all.

It looks as though they want to grant Impact Factors to journals that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in Thomson Reuters JCR. It is a farce though as no one will take this seriously. There is only one impact factor.

It's like me giving you a medal in the park and suggesting that is the same as the Olympic medal.

If it is fake, then why not Thomson Reuters or ISI is criticizing or taking action against it?????????

One to keep away from. See this link Look out for Bogus Impact Factor Companies [ http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/08/06/bogus-impact-factor-companies/ ].

I agree, it seems to be fake. Thomsom Reuters or ISI will not waste their time!!

There are a lot of agencies are allotting the impact factor and these are independent so we can not blame anyone. Thomson Reuters and ISI providing the impact factor on the same calculation and these agencies are using that formula.

i think Impact factor this word is Fake if you haven't find prestigious and valuable research paper in journal having high impact factor. presently a lot of journals are available online and providing their services having some quality papers so their impact is good.

A lot of authors don't know about the journal impact factor and publish their article in normal journal but their research have impact so don't go on impact factor each journal providing us information and any kind of impact factor is not important may be provide by any agencies.

While I agree that UIF is not transparent in many ways (it is unclear who are the people behind and also the calculation of the UIF is not transparent) I am very astonished how blindly most colleagues in this discussion believe into the impact factor produced by ISI (Thomson-Reuters). The journal selection there is also completely intransparent!!! Who reallly does believe that there is any quality criterion behind the selection which journal is in ISI and which not??? This belief is quite naive. Evidently the ISI database is a money printing maschine for Thomson Reuters because institutions all around the world let themselves perceive that this is a kind of objective evaluation of science, and thus scientific libraries pay hells of lots of money for this service. But in fact, the very basis of the whole calculation is not driven by scientific criteria, but solely by economic ones. In the beginning, ISI had and extreme Anglo-American bias, and they still have, meaning that mediocre US journals are in, but better quality journals from elsewhere in the world not, let alone journals in other languages - and this simply because the main customers of ISI were in the US. When Scopus as competitor appeared and announced that they would have a much better journal coverage outside the Anglo-American realm (and indeed they have), ISI all of a sudden added hundreds of journals from such countries, too. Who believes that they all suddenly reached a better quality standard?

I would argue: we should really get rid off the assessing science quality based on non-scientific criteria, and be aware that the completely intransparent and profit-driven journal selection process behind the ISI Webbase that underlies the Thomson Reuters IF's is detrimental for good science. Scopus is already a move into a better direction, because the bias in the journal selection is much less pronounced - but still the problem is that the decision which journals to include and which not is made by a commercial firm. Therefore, Google Scholar Citations is a real step forward because they remove this intransparent and unfair filter that only citations in journals that are selected by a commercial firm to selected journals are counted. In Google Scholar Citations, simply all citations from scientists to scientist count, whether it is a journal article in English or in Arabic, a book or a book chapter.

So the logic thing that would bring a big advancement to the fair bibliometric assessment of scientists would be to calculate impact factors based on something like Google Scholar. This idea is behind UIF, and I believe that this idea is worth being supported by scientists all around the world in order to get rid of the commercial grip on bibliometric evaluation (which as we all know decides on thousands of scientific careers) by high-profit firms like Thomson-Reuters (WoS) and Elsevier (Scopus).

The bad thing is that UIF implements the excellent idea so far in a very poor manner. But I hope that the idea of UIF inspires others to do the same thing in a much better way.

I have found any Australian based "GLOBAL IMPACT FACTOR". I think it is closely follow the tough terms and conditions to give any journal an IMPACT FACTOR. So, like ISI based impact factors GIF should also considered. Moreover there is no fee for journal evaluation.

http://globalimpactfactor.com/

Moreover it consists of team of international reviewers.

http://globalimpactfactor.com/reviewers/

Can any expert consider my opinion that GIF must be equally treated just like ISI based impact factors?

It is an open discussion for international researchers to share their comments by comparing ISI with GIF. I am looking forward to hear quality answers for any site.

Salman Ahmed....read the above discussion properly you will understand...all the doubts you have are cleared there..

Dear Niladri,

I HAVE NO DOUBT. I am just asking about GIF. If you do not have any idea about it just click and share your views what do you think about GIF.

http://globalimpactfactor.com/

http://globalimpactfactor.com/reviewers/

Regards.

SALMAN AHMED

Ph.D FELLOW

Salman, if you have no doubts why do you need my views?? do you think it will be any different from other learned fellows who wrote so much above??? Everything foreign is not genuine you know….moreover reviewers are not needed but citations of the journals are needed for evaluation of impact factors…i checked out some of the indian peoples name in the list which seems bogus…. from some mediocre university…none of the elite institutions faculty are there… but sure if you feel it should be considered as it is australian based..you may surely go on believe on them…CHEERS!!!

Th ease agencies are not authentic and haven't approval from CAS and others.

Cannot relay on it.

this is too much confusing for a new scientist to contribute. i think all journal should be given the same criteria. IMPORTANTLY the journals having UIF are already registered on ISI master list...........................this is a big question for me

Dear Fida,

I think that impact factor is not important. Only the important thing is that what you have done for the service and betterment of mankind. So, your research is very important than to publish your research work in a good impact factor journal.

If anyone have any objection feel free to ask.

hi all.. i read all comments . but the real factor which i felt is every one want to do good work n they want to publish in good journals also. but because of the very high publishing fee people or students like me  from india ,cant imagine about that. when dollars converting to INR its becoming a huge amount. so all r thinking or hesitating to publish it.... first think about reducing the fee

         daya india

You can read various information at: http://scholarsteer.com/

This website explains various measures judging the quality of journals. Researchers should read this article before submitting their article

Hi Ravi, this site claims that the Global Impact Factor is a credible source. It is not. See  the link for more information on Fake Impact Factors. I wouldn't rely on this site if it doesn't know this! BW Matt

http://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/

GIF, UIF seem to be unable to recognize some top journals e.g. Nature, PNAS etc. This is very funny.....