Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We discuss research evaluation, the nature of impact, and the use of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor and other indicators in scientometrics in the light of recent commentary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABRC (1987). A strategy for the science base. HMSO, London. ISBN 0 11 270627 4.

  • Adam, D. (2002). Citation analysis: The counting house. Nature, 415, 726–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. (2002). Research assessment in the UK. Science, 296, 805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. (2005). Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact. Scientometrics, 65(3), 567–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. (2007). The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions. Universities UK, London. ISBN 1 84036 165 4 http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/bibliometrics.pdf.

  • Adams, J. (2008). Strategic review of the performance-based research fund: The assessment process. A report to the New Zealand Tertiary Education Council, http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Reports%20and%20other%20documents/pbrf-strategic-review-of-asessment-process-2008-review.pdf p. 112.

  • Adams, J. (2009). The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57, 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., Gurney, K. A., & Marshall, S. (2007). Profiling citation impact: A new methodology. Scientometrics, 72(2), 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., Jackson, L., Simmonds, P., & Stroyan, J. (2006). Evaluating social science bibliometrics and research indicators. A report to the UK Economic and Social Research Council. Swindon: ESRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., Mount, D.R., Smith, D. & Thomson, S. (2010). The future of the UK university research base. A report to Universities UK. Universities UK, London. http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/UUK-FutureOfResearch-LiteratureReview.pdf p. 63.

  • Adams, J., & Smith, D. (2007). Higher education, research and the knowledge economy: From Robbins to the gathering storm. In D. Watson & M. Amoah (Eds.), The dearing report, ten years on. Institute of Education. ISBN 0 85473 780 4. London, pp. 81–108.

  • Adams, J., Watt, P. J., Naylor, C. J., & Greenwood, P. J. (1989). Loading constraints, body size and mating preference in Gammarus species. Hydrobiologia, 183, 157–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensman, S. J. (2012). The impact factor: Its place in Garfield’s thought, in science evaluation, and in library collection management. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0601-9.

  • Braun, T. (2007). The impact factor of scientific and scholarly journals: Its use and misuse in research evaluation. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. ISBN 9 63 058528 6.

  • Buchanan, R. A. (2006). Accuracy of cited references: The role of citation databases. College and Research Libraries, 67, 292–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (2011). Empirical study of journal impact factors obtained using the classical two-year citation window versus a five-year citation window. Scientometrics, 87, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M., Carretero, J., Marangon, V., Molina, A., & Ros, G. (2011). Effect on the journal impact factor of the number and document type of citing records: A wide-scale study. Scientometrics, 87, 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012). Evidence base for research and innovation. http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=fp7-evidence.

  • Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: Journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Science, 178, 471–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1976). Significant journals of science. Nature, 264, 609–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E., & Sher, I. H. (1963). New factors in evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation, 14, 195–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodhart, C. A. E. (1975). Monetary relationships: A view from threadneedle street. papers in monetary economics. Sydney: Reserve Bank of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Government (1993). Realising our potential: A strategy for science, engineering and technology., Cm 2250. HMSO, London. ISBN 0 10 122502 4.

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102, 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, S. C., & McVeigh, M. E. (2011). Casting a wide net: The journal impact factor numerator. Learned Publishing, 24, 133–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0660-6.

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors: An alternative research design with policy implications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 2133–2146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, W. (2011). Special features of historical papers from the viewpoint of bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 433–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, M. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 95–96 and 174–178.

  • Moed, H. F., Glanzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (2004). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (eds.). Kluwer, Dordrecht. ISBN 1 4020 2702 8.

  • Moed, H. F., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (1996). Impact factors can mislead. Nature, 381, 186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendlebury, D. A. (2008). Thomson scientific corrects inaccuracies in editorial. Retrieved from http://community.thomsonreuters.com/t5/Citation-Impact-Center/Thomson-Scientific-Corrects-Inaccuracies-In-Editorial/ba-p/717/message-uid/717. Accessed on 29 January 2012.

  • Pendlebury, D. A. (2009). The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R. (2012). Updating the journal impact factor or total overhaul? Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0649-1.

  • Rossner, M., Van Epps, H., & Hill, E. (2007). Show me the data. Journal of Cell Biology, 179, 1091–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, J. (2008). The Thomson Reuters journal selection process. Retrieved from http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/journal_selection_process/. Accessed 29 January 2012.

  • Testa, J. (2011). The globalization of the Web of science: 2005–2010. Retrieved from http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/globalwos-essay.pdf. Accessed 29 January 2012.

  • Thomson Reuters (2012). Journal citation reports. Retrieved from http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports/. Accessed 29 January 2012.

  • Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, J. K. (2012). Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Thomson Reuters, 1500 Spring Garden Street, Fourth Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19130, USA

    David A. Pendlebury

  2. Thomson Reuters, 103 Clarendon Road, Leeds, LS2 9DF, UK

    Jonathan Adams

Authors
  1. David A. Pendlebury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Adams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pendlebury, D.A., Adams, J. Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor. Scientometrics 92, 395–401 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0689-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0689-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation