Read on Twitter
It is officially impact factor season, which means...
Journal Impact Factor (JIF): What it is and what it isnât. An updated version of my 2019 thread.
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="đ§”" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread"> (1/14)
Journal Impact Factor (JIF): What it is and what it isnât. An updated version of my 2019 thread.
(1/14)" title="It is officially impact factor season, which means...Journal Impact Factor (JIF): What it is and what it isnât. An updated version of my 2019 thread. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="đ§”" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread"> (1/14)" class="img-responsive" style="max-width:100%;"/>
Updated JIFs were released yesterday (exciting), but before applauding a JIF increase it is important to see how much (or how little) this metric really matters...
Question: What is a "good" impact factor? (2/14)
Question: What is a "good" impact factor? (2/14)
Question: Do you know how a JIF is calculated? (3/14)
The 2019 JIF is calculated as shown below. The numerator includes citations of original research articles, review papers, editorials, letters, and abstracts. However, the number of citable items includes ONLY original research articles and review papers (this is important) (4/14)
This effectively means citations of editorials and letters etc are a âfree-hitâ to increase JIF. They count as a citation, but will not be divisible as a citable item.
...and if the editorial or letter cites articles from said journal = bigger bonus! (5/14)
...and if the editorial or letter cites articles from said journal = bigger bonus! (5/14)
Reviews, meta-analyses, consensus statements, and clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited (and quickly!). These can elevate the JIFâparticularly if a journal publishes fewer original research items in comparison. (6/14)
This is not a criticism of these types of articlesâmany of which are useful for practitioners, clinicians, and to gauge an overview of a topic areaâbut exercise caution if a journal promotes a dramatic JIF while using these methods. (7/14)
You can check this by looking through the recent issues of your favourite journal. How many of each article type are they publishing? (the pattern may have changed over recent years, corresponding to a higher JIF). (8/14)
Journals also use other & #39;trickery& #39; to elevate JIF. Have you ever had a paper accepted + published online, then waited many months for it to be published in print? The paper begins picking up citations from the ePub, but the JIF citation period begins once it is in print...(9/14)
To some extent, a delay in the system is normal. But see if your favourite journal has a habit of delaying publication. Check out this particularly long & #39;delay& #39; below: (10/14) https://twitter.com/sTeamTraen/status/1276589610181722114?s=20">https://twitter.com/sTeamTrae...
For raw data behind the JIF visit Journal Citation Reports (institutional access needed: https://jcr.clarivate.com/JCRLandingPageAction.action
)">https://jcr.clarivate.com/JCRLandin... and search for journals of interest to see if they may be artificially inflating their JIF and, therefore, their perceived âimpactâ. (11/14)
)">https://jcr.clarivate.com/JCRLandin... and search for journals of interest to see if they may be artificially inflating their JIF and, therefore, their perceived âimpactâ. (11/14)
The website Scimago ( https://scimagojr.com"> https://scimagojr.com ) provides an alternative to JIF, with a journal ranking system that can be re-organised based on a variety of metrics. More on that here: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18408168 .">https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18... (12/14)
Can a change in JIF be genuine? Of course. But we should understand how the number is generated and how it can be exploited.
Many respectable journals have a "low" JIF. Does this make the quality of science worse than journals with a higher JIF? (13/14)
Many respectable journals have a "low" JIF. Does this make the quality of science worse than journals with a higher JIF? (13/14)
Lastly, the JIF does not measure parameters that are important for good science, such as: commitment to open science; rigorous editorial and peer review practices; or integrity when faced with retractions, corrections, and misconduct etc. (14/14)
