Beat It, Impact Factor! Publishing Elite Turns against Controversial Metric. Callaway, E. 535(7611):210–211. ![Beat It, Impact Factor! Publishing Elite Turns against Controversial Metric [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Senior staff at leading journals want to end inappropriate use of the measure. [Excerpt] [...] Calculated by various companies and promoted by publishers, journal impact factors (JIFs) are a measure of the average number of citations that articles published by a journal in the previous two years have received in the current year. [\n] They were designed to indicate the quality of journals, but researchers often use the metric to assess the quality of individual papers – and even, in some cases, their authors. [\n] Now, a paper posted to the preprint server bioRxiv1 on 5 July, authored by senior employees at several leading science publishers (including Nature's owner, SpringerNature), calls on journals to downplay the figure in favour of a metric that captures the range of citations that a journal's articles attract. [\n] And in an editorial that will appear on 11 July in eight of its journals, the American Society for Microbiology in Washington DC will announce plans to remove the impact factor from its journals and website, as well as from marketing and advertising. [\n] [...] [Brace for impact] Heidi Siegel, a spokesperson for London-based business-analytics firm Thomson Reuters, the major publisher of the JIF, says that the measure is a broad-brush indicator of a journal's output – and should not be used as a proxy for the quality of any single paper or its authors. [...] [\n] But many scientists, funders and journals do not use it that way, notes Stephen Curry, a structural biologist at Imperial College London who is lead author on the bioRxiv preprint paper. Many researchers evaluate papers by the impact factor of the journals in which they appear, he worries, and impact factor can also influence decisions made by university hiring committees and funding agencies. [\n] Past research suggests that such uses are inappropriate. [...]
@article{callawayBeatItImpact2016,
title = {Beat It, Impact Factor! {{Publishing}} Elite Turns against Controversial Metric},
author = {Callaway, Ewen},
date = {2016-07},
journaltitle = {Nature},
volume = {535},
pages = {210--211},
issn = {0028-0836},
doi = {10.1038/nature.2016.20224},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224},
abstract = {Senior staff at leading journals want to end inappropriate use of the measure.
[Excerpt]
[...] Calculated by various companies and promoted by publishers, journal impact factors (JIFs) are a measure of the average number of citations that articles published by a journal in the previous two years have received in the current year.
[\textbackslash n] They were designed to indicate the quality of journals, but researchers often use the metric to assess the quality of individual papers -- and even, in some cases, their authors.
[\textbackslash n] Now, a paper posted to the preprint server bioRxiv1 on 5 July, authored by senior employees at several leading science publishers (including Nature's owner, SpringerNature), calls on journals to downplay the figure in favour of a metric that captures the range of citations that a journal's articles attract.
[\textbackslash n] And in an editorial that will appear on 11 July in eight of its journals, the American Society for Microbiology in Washington DC will announce plans to remove the impact factor from its journals and website, as well as from marketing and advertising.
[\textbackslash n] [...]
[Brace for impact]
Heidi Siegel, a spokesperson for London-based business-analytics firm Thomson Reuters, the major publisher of the JIF, says that the measure is a broad-brush indicator of a journal's output -- and should not be used as a proxy for the quality of any single paper or its authors. [...]
[\textbackslash n] But many scientists, funders and journals do not use it that way, notes Stephen Curry, a structural biologist at Imperial College London who is lead author on the bioRxiv preprint paper. Many researchers evaluate papers by the impact factor of the journals in which they appear, he worries, and impact factor can also influence decisions made by university hiring committees and funding agencies.
[\textbackslash n] Past research suggests that such uses are inappropriate. [...]},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14094795,~to-add-doi-URL,bibliometrics,citation-metrics,impact-factor,research-funding,research-metrics},
number = {7611}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"LpzTfXgSh8uhxq6D3","bibbaseid":"callaway-beatitimpactfactorpublishingeliteturnsagainstcontroversialmetric","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Callaway, E."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Beat It, Impact Factor! Publishing Elite Turns against Controversial Metric","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Callaway"],"firstnames":["Ewen"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2016-07","journaltitle":"Nature","volume":"535","pages":"210–211","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/nature.2016.20224","url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224","abstract":"Senior staff at leading journals want to end inappropriate use of the measure. [Excerpt] [...] Calculated by various companies and promoted by publishers, journal impact factors (JIFs) are a measure of the average number of citations that articles published by a journal in the previous two years have received in the current year. [\\n] They were designed to indicate the quality of journals, but researchers often use the metric to assess the quality of individual papers – and even, in some cases, their authors. [\\n] Now, a paper posted to the preprint server bioRxiv1 on 5 July, authored by senior employees at several leading science publishers (including Nature's owner, SpringerNature), calls on journals to downplay the figure in favour of a metric that captures the range of citations that a journal's articles attract. [\\n] And in an editorial that will appear on 11 July in eight of its journals, the American Society for Microbiology in Washington DC will announce plans to remove the impact factor from its journals and website, as well as from marketing and advertising. [\\n] [...] [Brace for impact] Heidi Siegel, a spokesperson for London-based business-analytics firm Thomson Reuters, the major publisher of the JIF, says that the measure is a broad-brush indicator of a journal's output – and should not be used as a proxy for the quality of any single paper or its authors. [...] [\\n] But many scientists, funders and journals do not use it that way, notes Stephen Curry, a structural biologist at Imperial College London who is lead author on the bioRxiv preprint paper. Many researchers evaluate papers by the impact factor of the journals in which they appear, he worries, and impact factor can also influence decisions made by university hiring committees and funding agencies. [\\n] Past research suggests that such uses are inappropriate. [...]","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14094795,~to-add-doi-URL,bibliometrics,citation-metrics,impact-factor,research-funding,research-metrics","number":"7611","bibtex":"@article{callawayBeatItImpact2016,\n title = {Beat It, Impact Factor! {{Publishing}} Elite Turns against Controversial Metric},\n author = {Callaway, Ewen},\n date = {2016-07},\n journaltitle = {Nature},\n volume = {535},\n pages = {210--211},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/nature.2016.20224},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224},\n abstract = {Senior staff at leading journals want to end inappropriate use of the measure.\n\n[Excerpt] \n\n[...] Calculated by various companies and promoted by publishers, journal impact factors (JIFs) are a measure of the average number of citations that articles published by a journal in the previous two years have received in the current year.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] They were designed to indicate the quality of journals, but researchers often use the metric to assess the quality of individual papers -- and even, in some cases, their authors.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Now, a paper posted to the preprint server bioRxiv1 on 5 July, authored by senior employees at several leading science publishers (including Nature's owner, SpringerNature), calls on journals to downplay the figure in favour of a metric that captures the range of citations that a journal's articles attract.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] And in an editorial that will appear on 11 July in eight of its journals, the American Society for Microbiology in Washington DC will announce plans to remove the impact factor from its journals and website, as well as from marketing and advertising.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]\n\n[Brace for impact]\n\nHeidi Siegel, a spokesperson for London-based business-analytics firm Thomson Reuters, the major publisher of the JIF, says that the measure is a broad-brush indicator of a journal's output -- and should not be used as a proxy for the quality of any single paper or its authors. [...]\n\n[\\textbackslash n] But many scientists, funders and journals do not use it that way, notes Stephen Curry, a structural biologist at Imperial College London who is lead author on the bioRxiv preprint paper. Many researchers evaluate papers by the impact factor of the journals in which they appear, he worries, and impact factor can also influence decisions made by university hiring committees and funding agencies.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Past research suggests that such uses are inappropriate. [...]},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14094795,~to-add-doi-URL,bibliometrics,citation-metrics,impact-factor,research-funding,research-metrics},\n number = {7611}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Callaway, E."],"key":"callawayBeatItImpact2016","id":"callawayBeatItImpact2016","bibbaseid":"callaway-beatitimpactfactorpublishingeliteturnsagainstcontroversialmetric","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-14094795","~to-add-doi-URL","bibliometrics","citation-metrics","impact-factor","research-funding","research-metrics"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:03.647Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-14094795","~to-add-doi-url","bibliometrics","citation-metrics","impact-factor","research-funding","research-metrics"],"search_terms":["beat","impact","factor","publishing","elite","turns","against","controversial","metric","callaway"],"title":"Beat It, Impact Factor! Publishing Elite Turns against Controversial Metric","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}