Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

Computer Science – Digital Libraries

Scientific paper

Rate now

  [ 0.00 ] – not rated yet Voters 0   Comments 0

Details

25 pages, 12 figures, 6 tables

Scientific paper

10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.

No associations

LandOfFree

Say what you really think

Search LandOfFree.com for scientists and scientific papers. Rate them and share your experience with other people.

Rating

Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

     

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-159210

  Search
All data on this website is collected from public sources. Our data reflects the most accurate information available at the time of publication.