Hi Dear Salvatore

I think the impact factor is very important to other index

The index h is a bibliometric indicator that gains strength as a reference for research trajectory compared to the impact factor, mainly because it unites dissemination and impact. The main weakness is that it does not consider dating tails above or below the index and endorses mass producers of articles and penalizes selective.

I think first it is important to clarify whether you are looking at journals at the aggregate level (Journal Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, SciMago Journal Rank or H-index, Google Scholar Metrics) or individual articles (Impact Factor, Article Influence from Eigenfactor) or Google Citation indexing.

Alot depends on the field and its citations patterns. Journal Impact Factor favors fast moving fields, since it looks at citation patterns over two years (though a 5 year JIF is available.) By default, Eigenfactor uses citation patterns over the first 5 years after publication. It also compensates for different citation patterns across discipline.

If your field is more specialized, it may be useful to choose a ranking system that has a closely aligned subcategory so that you are not “competing” against more mainstream journals. For example, JCR ranks about 130 categories in Science and 50+ in Social Science. SciMago has 313 subcategories.

As a librarian, I tend to like Eigenfactor because it considers factors such as price and number of articles in the journal to evaluate cost effectiveness. However, I doubt these factors would be as significant to a typical researcher.

The answer really depends on what you are evaluating. Impact Factors have significant issues and probably should not be used since they are easily manipulated and very variable. See Gallivan, M. J. (2009). Unpacking the Journal "Impact Factor" and Its Effect on IS Research: Does it Do More Harm than Good?". Paper presented at the Proceedings of the America's Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, CA.

The Hirsch indices beginning with the basic Hirsch index (Hirsch, 2005) provides a good perspective on influence however it has several weaknesses. It doesn't account for "big hit" papers. It is biased toward papers and scholars that have been around for a while to pick up citations. It also doesn't consider multiple authors. To resolve these weaknesses other h indices have been proposed. The g-index (Egghe, 2006) accounts for big-hit papers. The hc-index (Sidiropoulos, 2006) accounts for paper age. The hm-index (Molinari and Molinari, 2008) accounts for massive numbers of publications. The HI index of various flavors (Schreiber, Harzing, Batista) account for multiple authors. When using these, you should probably use a profile of the various indices to get a comprehensive perspective on the influence of the scholar, department or journal to be considered.

You might want to read what IEEE has to say about the use on the use of bibliometrics for the assessment of research quality (see link below).

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/ieee_bibliometric_statement_sept_2013.pdf

Hi Dear Salvatore

I think the impact factor is very important to other index

http://ijaridea.com/Reference-Manager gives you appropriate answer

Try this website

http://dns2.asia.edu.tw/~ysho/YSHO-English/Publications/Bibliometrics.htm

Journal Impact Factor

The impact factor is important

It is impossible to measure with justice, the scientific quality of a paper from a single bibliometric index. There are a large number of indicators that together offer a more fair and accurate criterion on the quality of research. Each index has a specific purpose and precise scope. In order to evaluate a scientific contribution fairly, it must be assessed from various aspects.