Why the Impact Factor of Journals Should Not Be Used for Evaluating Research

Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the Impact Factor of Journals Should Not Be Used for Evaluating Research. BMJ, 314(7079), 498-502.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

1997

DOI

10.1136/bmj.314.7079.498

Link

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497

Cited from

library_information_science, philosophy

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Relevance Substitution
  • in recommender systems (engagement signal substituted for user-value signal), in scientific evaluation (citation count and author-prestige substituted for research quality),

    This sourceArgues citation and journal-impact metrics are poor and substituted proxies for research quality.

• Salience-as-Significance
  • Science and academia. Citation counts and venue prestige read as intellectual quality, when they measure use frequency shaped by field size, recency, and conformity.

    This sourceArgues citation counts and venue prestige measure use frequency shaped by field size, recency, and conformity rather than intrinsic quality.

Verification

This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.

Links previously used in the corpus

Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.

• https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.498 ×1

Registry ID ref:7d48f28f11bd · see in the full table