PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9381604

[The impact factor--a reliable sciento-metric parameter?].

Abstract

With shortage of research funds and increasing competition for medical posts, performance indicators and control instruments are being looked for in order to be able to allot research funds and make professorial appointments in relation to scientific performance. Incomprehensibly for many, the impact factor has become the decisive scientometric indicator at German universities despite of substantial systematic limitations. The impact factor is derived from the journal citation reports. Its basis of calculation entails the following problems: the editorial board of the private Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) decides on whether a journal is to be classified as a source journal. The citation index of all journals is calculated from their citations alone. Crucial means of influencing the impact factor result from self-citations and citation groups in these source journals. Languages other than English and other than Latin alphabets are appreciably disadvantaged by the citation index, which is why for example despite its international significance the rapid development of the osteosynthesis technique in German speaking countries went unnoticed by British and American orthopedic surgeons and scientists. The articles on postgraduate training necessarily published by clinicians in the respective language of their country are not cited because the addresses of such publications do not engage in research. Clinical disciplines (especially highly specialized disciplines such as trauma and hand surgery) thus attain appreciably lower impact factors for their journals than basic disciplines and interdisciplinary clinical sectors which lead the ranking of journals. The period covered in calculating the impact factor is only 2 years. Very modern and widely disseminated organs of publication with a short information halflife are favored. From the 10 objectively most often cited and most important journals for the scientific society, only 2 are to be found amongst those with the highest impact factor. The impact front-runner from 1995 has a very low absolute number of citations. The impact factor provides limited statistical information on a journal in its special field. Using it for this purpose presupposes knowledge of rules, limitations and constraints. Its uncritical use as a general currency of science is fundamentally unscientific. In addition, this leads to the specialists in the field knowledge of the universities being disregarded in favor of a pseudo-objective parameter determined elsewhere. At all events, correction factors for the impact factor have to be applied in respect to the different disciplines. The faculties should reach agreement on relevant (also on German language) organs of publication. The impact factor is not suitable as an indicator of the research activity and the quality of a researcher or an institution. Besides careful human judgement and other classical methods of decision making, the Science Citation Index can contribute to the individual evaluation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

N M Meenen. 1997. [The impact factor--a reliable sciento-metric parameter?].. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02630217

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Trends in demographic and health survey publications based on a bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program, launched in 1984, provides high-quality population health data that underpins a vast body of global health research. However, the scale and growth patterns of DHS-based publications remain underexplored, particularly as donor funding uncertainties threaten program sustainability. OBJECTIVE: We examine temporal trends in DHS-based research output from 1984 to 2025, quantifying growth patterns and publication delays to inform understanding of the program's global research expansion. METHODS: A systematic bibliometric review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Wiley, and CINAHL. Eligible peer-reviewed articles using DHS data between 1984 and 2025 were identified. Annual publication counts were analyzed, segmented regression identified growth inflection points, and timeliness was assessed by calculating lag between survey completion and publication. RESULTS: Over 10,000 DHS-based publications were identified. Annual output rose from isolated studies in the 1980s to several hundred annually by the 2010s. Segmentation analysis revealed two rapid growth phases: a 56-publications/year increase from 2004-2012, and a 71-publications/year increase from 2012 to 2024. Despite this growth, median lag from survey completion to publication remained approximately 5 years, with only a modest recent improvement (Kendall's &#x3c4;&#x2009;=&#x2009; -0.623, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). CONCLUSION: DHS data have fueled exponential growth in global health research over four decades, confirming their vital role in evidence generation. However, persistent publication delays highlight the need to shorten the pathway from data collection to dissemination through strengthened research capacity in low- and middle-income countries. Sustained funding is essential to maintain this critical evidence source.

Bibliometrics↗

A research synthesis of humans, animals, and environmental compartments exposed to PFAS: A systematic evidence map and bibliometric analysis of secondary literature.

BACKGROUND: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of widely used anthropogenic chemicals. Concerns regarding their persistence and potential adverse effects have led to multiple secondary research publications. Here, we aim to assess the resulting evidence base in the systematic secondary literature by examining research gaps, evaluating the quality of reviews, and exploring interdisciplinary connections. METHODS: This study employed a systematic evidence-mapping approach to assess the secondary literature on the biological, environmental, and medical aspects of exposure to 35 fluorinated compounds. The inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, pre-prints, and theses. Comprehensive searches across electronic databases and grey literature identified relevant reviews. Data extraction and synthesis involved mapping literature content and narrative descriptions. We employed a modified version of the AMSTAR2 checklist to evaluate the methodological rigour of the reviews. A bibliometric data analysis uncovered patterns and trends in the academic literature. A research protocol for this study was previously pre-registered (osf.io/2tpn8) and published (Vendl et al., Environment International 158 (2022) 106973). The database is freely accessible through the interactive and user-friendly web application of this systematic evidence map at https://hi-this-is-lorenzo.shinyapps.io/PFAS_SEM_Shiny_App/. RESULTS: Our map includes a total of 175 systematic reviews. Over the years, there has been a steady increase in the annual number of publications, with a notable surge in 2021. Most reviews focused on human exposure, whereas environmental and animal-related reviews were fewer and often lacked a rigorous systematic approach to literature search and screening. Review outcomes were predominantly associated with human health, particularly with reproductive and children's developmental health. Animal reviews primarily focused on studies conducted in controlled laboratory settings, and wildlife reviews were characterised by an over-representation of birds and fish species. Recent reviews increasingly incorporated quantitative synthesis methodologies. The methodological strengths of the reviews included detailed descriptions of study selection processes and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. However, weaknesses were observed in the critical lack of detail in reporting methods. A bibliometric analysis revealed that the most productive authors collaborate within their own country, leading to limited and clustered international collaborations. CONCLUSIONS: In this overview of the available systematic secondary literature, we map literature content, assess reviews' methodological quality, highlight data gaps, and draw research network clusters. We aim to facilitate literature reviews, guide future research initiatives, and enhance opportunities for cross-country collaboration. Furthermore, we discuss how this systematic evidence map and its publicly available database benefit scientists, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders by providing access to current systematic secondary literature on PFAS exposure.

Bibliometrics↗