Yesterday (11th of July 2016), the ASM announced to remove all information regarding impact factors of their journals from respective websites (http://mbio.asm.org/content/7/4/e01150-16). It is considered as an attempt to "...avoid contributing to a distorted value system that inappropriately emphasizes high IFs.".
The discussion of the pro´s and con´s of impact factors to evaluate research is as old as the impact factor itself. I wonder what the scientific community thinks on this measure and what the alternatives might be?
Discuss! ;)
D.B.
This looks like a part of the growing trend, see the Nature article and the related RG questions linked below:
http://www.nature.com/news/beat-it-impact-factor-publishing-elite-turns-against-controversial-metric-1.20224
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_future_of_impact_factor_will_its_role_diminish
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_journal_metric_impact_factor_eigenfactor_Google_Scholar_metric_etc_best_reflects_the_prestige_of_a_given_journal_in_the_expert_community?
@Artur Sergyeyev: I find it quite interesting that the editorial boards of science and nature are so critical in evaluating the impact factor as a measure of quality. As far as I understand it, it is the high impact factor that give these journals their "elite status"?
I wonder if it would be more straighforward to link impact factors not so much to individual journals but to special fields of expertise, indicating how much e.g. other physiologists scieted a certain publication publication on physiological mechanisms?
@Daniel: IMHO the high IF is certainly one of the key signs of the elite status of these journals, so I am also somewhat surprised by this development, that's why I asked a question I linked above.
@Andras: I don't think AMS has ever posted the IFs for its journals at the journals' web pages in the first place. However, it has another indicator, MCQ, see the links below, which is somewhat similar to IF.
http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/help/citation_database_help_full.html#journalinfo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Reviews#Mathematical_citation_quotient
@Daniel: I have a guess regarding Peng's answer: it appears that the research evaluation system in China is primarily based on the impact factors of the journals where the articles of a researcher being evaluated are published.
http://www.economist.com/news/china/21586845-flawed-system-judging-research-leading-academic-fraud-looks-good-paper
http://www.nature.com/news/policy-boost-basic-research-in-china-1.20117
http://nautil.us/issue/5/fame/fame-is-fortune-in-sino_science
@Artur: Well, that would explain his answer. Indeed, this would be a drawback if the chinese authorities would´t adapt their evaluation system as well.
@Daniel Brugger As @Artur Sergyeyev said, IF is one of the key signs to evaluate the quality of Journals. In addition, according to Chinese policy, the IF almost is the sole index to evaluate the level of Chinese researchers. So, it's a bad news.
@Peng Zhang: Do you see any chances this Chinese policy might change if the worldwide opinion on this matter changes?
@Daniel Brugger: I don't think there would be any changes in the next decade.
I think this is a step backwards, unless a more advanced evaluation method is introduced.
Personally, I have always thought of the impact factor as a poor indicator of a journal's value therefore I support changing but not omitting this score.
A better indication of a journal's impact requires public engagement from scientists.
if ASM really wanted to take the IF to protect the researcher, arguing that the IF concerned the reputation of a scientific review, you must know that. the impact factor of a journal is the average number of citations received per paper published in that journal during the two preceding years
However, the citation will serve the researchers for calculating their H index.
While, removing the IF from website, the researchers will have to find it elsewhere. or, maybe you oblige scientific institutions to have a WOS subscription
articles publication results in all fields based on WOS:
China : 3,199,963 published articles
Germany: 2,759,814 published articles
- Badges
- Science topic