评估期刊影响因子:系统地调查利弊,并概述可选择的措施。

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q4 TOXICOLOGY
Eugene Mech, Muhammad Muneeb Ahmed, Edward Tamale, Matthew Holek, Guowei Li, Lehana Thabane
{"title":"评估期刊影响因子:系统地调查利弊,并概述可选择的措施。","authors":"Eugene Mech,&nbsp;Muhammad Muneeb Ahmed,&nbsp;Edward Tamale,&nbsp;Matthew Holek,&nbsp;Guowei Li,&nbsp;Lehana Thabane","doi":"10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2019-0082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: <i>(1)</i> to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; <i>(2)</i> to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and <i>(3)</i> to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For objective <i>(1)</i>, 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective <i>(2)</i>, 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective <i>(3)</i>, 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.</p>","PeriodicalId":17565,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases","volume":"26 ","pages":"e20190082"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7458102/pdf/","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures.\",\"authors\":\"Eugene Mech,&nbsp;Muhammad Muneeb Ahmed,&nbsp;Edward Tamale,&nbsp;Matthew Holek,&nbsp;Guowei Li,&nbsp;Lehana Thabane\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2019-0082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: <i>(1)</i> to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; <i>(2)</i> to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and <i>(3)</i> to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For objective <i>(1)</i>, 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective <i>(2)</i>, 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective <i>(3)</i>, 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases\",\"volume\":\"26 \",\"pages\":\"e20190082\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7458102/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2019-0082\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2019-0082","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

背景:期刊影响因子(Journal Impact Factor, JIF)存在一些内在缺陷,无法充分衡量引文分布或反映期刊质量。尽管存在这些缺陷,JIF仍然在学术界广泛使用,导致潜在误导性信息的传播。需要对JIF的有用性进行批判性审查,包括对文献的概述,以确定可行的替代指标。本研究的目的是:(1)通过汇总和比较JIF的优缺点来评估其有用性;(2)记录JIF在研究环境中的不同使用情况;(3)总结和比较JIF的可行替代措施。方法:使用MEDLINE和Web of Science完成三种不同的文献检索策略,以实现三个研究目标。每次搜索都按照PRISMA指南完成。结果以表格形式汇总,并根据报告频次进行分析。结果:目的(1)纳入84项研究进行定性分析。研究发现,JIF记录的优点大于缺点(18个缺点对9个优点)。对于目标(2),653份记录被纳入定性分析。JIF最常用于期刊排名(n = 653, 100%)和科研生产力计算(n = 367, 56.2%)。目的(3)选取65部作品进行定性分析。这些文章揭示了45种替代方案,其中包括18种改进了JIF的缺点的替代方案。结论:JIF存在诸多弊端,被过度使用,导致信息不准确。已经确定了几个度量来改进JIF的某些缺点。综合影响指标(I3)作为JIF的替代方案显示出巨大的前景。然而,需要进一步的科学计量分析来评估其性质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures.

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures.

Background: Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF.

Methods: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency.

Results: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF.

Conclusion: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
39
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases (JVATiTD) is a non-commercial academic open access publication dedicated to research on all aspects of toxinology, venomous animals and tropical diseases. Its interdisciplinary content includes original scientific articles covering research on toxins derived from animals, plants and microorganisms. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:systematics and morphology of venomous animals;physiology, biochemistry, pharmacology and immunology of toxins;epidemiology, clinical aspects and treatment of envenoming by different animals, plants and microorganisms;development and evaluation of antivenoms and toxin-derivative products;epidemiology, clinical aspects and treatment of tropical diseases (caused by virus, bacteria, algae, fungi and parasites) including the neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) defined by the World Health Organization.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信