Emerging Alternatives to the Impact Factor

Banks, Marcus A. and Dellavalle, Robert Emerging Alternatives to the Impact Factor. OCLC Systems & Services, 2008, vol. 24, n. 3. (In Press) [Journal article (Paginated)]


Download (123kB) | Preview

English abstract

Purpose: The authors document the proliferating range of alternatives to the impact factor that have arisen within the past five years, coincident with the increased prominence of open access publishing. Methodology/Approach: This paper offers an overview of the history of the impact factor as a measure for scholarly merit; a summary of frequent criticisms of the impact factor’s calculation and usage; and a framework for understanding some of the leading alternatives to the impact factor. Findings: This paper identifies five categories of alternatives to the impact factor: a. Measures that build upon the same data that informs the impact factor. b. Measures that refine impact factor data with “page rank” indices that weight electronic resources or Web sites through the number of resources that link to them. c. Measures of article downloads and other usage factors. d. Recommender systems, in which individual scholars rate the value of articles and a group’s evaluations pool together collectively. e. Ambitious measures that attempt to encompass the interactions and influence of all inputs in the scholarly communications system. Value of Paper: Librarians can utilize the measures described in this paper to support more robust collection development than is possible through reliance on the impact factor alone.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: impact factor ; Eigenfactor ; h-index
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information
Depositing user: Marcus Banks
Date deposited: 05 Sep 2008
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:12
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/12268


1. Barendse, W. (2007) “The strike rate index: a new index for journal quality based on journal size and the h-index of citations”, Biomedical Digital Libraries, Vol 4 No 3. Available http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/4/1/3.

2. Bollen, J., Rodriguez, M.A., Van de Sompel, H. (2006) “Journal status,” Scientometrics, Vol 69 No 3, pp. 669-687. Available http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0601030.

3. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H-D. (2008) “Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol 59 No 5, pp. 830-837.

4. Brody, T., Harnad S., Carr L. (2006) “Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact,” Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol 57 No 8, pp 1060-1072. Available http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713/.

5. Dellavalle, R.P., Schilling, L.M., Rodriguez, M.A., Van de Sompel, H., Bollen, J. (2007) “Refining dermatology impact factors using PageRank,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology Vol 57 No 1, pp. 116-119.

6. Garfield, E. (2006) “The history and meaning of the journal impact factor,” Journal of the American Medical Association Vol 295 No 1, pp. 90-93. Available http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/1/90.

7. Garfield, E. (1972) “Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation,” Science Vol 178 No 60, pp. 471-479.

8. Garfield, E. (1955) “Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas,” Science Vol 122 No 3159, pp. 108-11. Available http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/5/1123.

9. Hirsch, J. E. (2005) “An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol 102 No 46, pp. 16569-16572. Available http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/46/16569.

10. Hitchcock, S. (2007) “Effect of open access on citation impact: a bibliography of studies.” Available http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html.

11. Kurtz, M.J., Henneken, E.A. (2007) “Open access does not increase citations for articles from The Astrophysical Journal.” Available http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0896.

12. Public Library of Science Medicine Editors (2006) “The impact factor game,” Public Library of Science Medicine Vol 3 No 6, pp. e291. Available http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16749869.

13. Research Assessment Exercise Team (2006) “RAE2008: panel criteria and working methods.” Available http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2006/01/.

14. Resnick, P. (2004) “Implications of Emerging Recommender and Reputation Systems,” in Committee on Electronic, Scientific, Technical, and Medical Journal Publishing (ed.), Electronic Scientific, Technical and Medical Journal Publishing and its Implications: Report of a Symposium, Washington, pp.49-50.

15. Rowlands, I., Nichols, D. (2005) “New journal publishing models: an international survey of senior researchers.” Available http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/ciber_2005_survey_final.pdf.

16. Schnell, E. (2007) “A blog citation index?” Available http://ericschnell.blogspot.com/2007/11/blog-citation-index-bci.html.

17. Seglen, P.O. (1997) “Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research,” British Medical Journal Vol 314 No 7079, pp. 498-502. Available http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497.

18. Shepard, P.T. (2007) “Final report on the investigation into the feasibility of developing and implementing journal usage factors.” Available http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/Final%20Report%20on%20Usage%20Factor%20project.pdf.

19. Smith, R. (2006) “Commentary: The power of the unrelenting impact factor—is it a force for good or harm?,” International Journal of Epidemiology Vol 35 No 5, pp. 1129-1130. Available http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/5/1129.


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item