Blog

Worshiping False Idols: The Impact Factor Dilemma

"...although the journal impact factor was born innocently enough ... Garfield's impact factor is now being used by others in ways that threaten to destroy scientific inquiry as we know it" says Roger Brumback in a recent article published in the Journal of Child Neurology {1}.

We think this is yet another interesting piece of literature highlighting the scientific community's dissatisfaction with the continued use of the impact factor to judge the quality of scientists and their work, as well as rank the institutions to which they belong.

The paper looks at the humble beginnings of the impact factor, how it has developed over the last 50 years or so and how its current use is affecting the scientific community. Brumback goes on to write, "Now would seem to be the appropriate time for the academic community to demand valid metrics to assess published scientific material".

He also states, "At a time when both the scientific community and the general public are lamenting the lack of transparency in science (particularly in relation to industry-supported research), it is unconscionable for academicians to deliver their careers into the hands of a for-profit company like Thomson Scientific that secretively derives a number to pigeonhole their research efforts".

The fact that this debate is being discussed in such a lively manner in some of the 'smaller impact' journals speaks volumes for its wide ranging appeal and highlights the need for a satisfactory alternative/compromise to be developed as soon as possible.

References:
{1} Brumback, Journal of Child Neurology 2008, 23:365-367. "Worshiping False Idols: The Impact Factor Dilemma" [PMID:18401031].

Save to del.icio.us | Email this

Posted by Sean Porazinski on Friday Jun 06, 2008, Category: Impact factor versus... | Permalink