Scientometrics
Volume/Issue:
Volume 92: Issue 2
Positive and negative aspects of citation indices and journal impact factors
Author:
Alexandru T. Balaban Texas A&M University at Galveston, 200 Seawolf Parkway, Galveston, TX 77553-1675, USA

Search for other papers by Alexandru T. Balaban in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Pages:
241–247
Online Publication Date:
26 Jan 2012
Publication Date:
01 Aug 2012
Article Category:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0637-5
Keywords:
Citation indices; Hirsch index h for individual scientists; Analogous journal-h index; Journal impact factor (IF); Uses and misuses of IF; Weight factor of citing author(s)
Restricted access

Abstract

The Hirsch citation index h is nowadays the most frequently used numerical indicator for the performance of scientists as reflected in their output and in the reaction of the scientific community reflected in citations of individual contributions. A few of the possible improvements of h are briefly reviewed. Garfield's journal impact factor (IF) characterizes the reaction of the scientific community to publications in journals, reflected in citations of all papers published in any given journal during the preceding 2 years, and normalized against all citable articles during the same period. Again, a few of the possible improvements or supplements of IF are briefly reviewed, including the journal-h index proposed by Braun, Glänzel, and Schubert. Ascribing higher weighting factors to citations of individual papers proportionally to IF is considered to be a misuse of useful numerical indices based on citations. At most, one could turn this argument on its head and one can find reasons to ascribe an inverse proportionality relative to IF for individual citations: if a paper is considered worthy to be cited even if it was published in a low-IF journal, that citation ought to be worth more than if the citation would have been from a higher-impact journal. A weight factor reflecting the prestige of the citing author(s) may also be considered.

  • Aguillo, IF 1996 Increasing the between-year stability of the impact factor in the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 35:279–282 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Balaban, AT 1996 How should citations to articles in high- and low-impact journals be evaluated, or what is a citation worth?. Scientometrics 37:495–498 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Balaban, AT 2011 A. T. Balaban's autobiographical notes: 80 years of age, 68 years of chemistry. MATCH Communications in Mathematical and Computational Chemistry 66:7–32.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Balaban A.T. (2012). Chemical graph theory, and the Sherlock Holmes Principle. Hyle (in press).

  • Bornmann, L, Daniel, HD 2007 What do we know about the h index?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58:1381–1385 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • T Braun eds. 2007 The impact factor of scientific and scholarly journals: its use and misuse in research evaluation 2 Scientometric Guidebooks Series Budapest.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics 69, 169–173, reprinted In: Braun, T (ed.) The Hirsch-Index for Evaluating Science and Scientists. Its Uses and Misuses. Scientometrics Guidebooks Series, Vol. 3 (pp. 163–168). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Campbell, P 2008 Escape from the impact factor. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8:5–7 .

  • Egghe, L 2006 Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics 69:121–129 .

  • Egghe, L 2010 The Hirsch-index and related impact measures B Cronin eds. Annual review of information science and technology 44 Information Today, Inc. Medford 65–114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Egghe, L 2010 Letter to the editor: On Randić's H-sequence. Scientometrics 84:795–797 .

  • Falagas, ME, Pitsouni, EI, Malietzis, GA, Pappas, G 2007 Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal 22:338–342 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fersht, A 2009 The most influential factors: impact factor and eigenfactor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:6883–6884 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Garfield, E 1972 Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178:471–479 .

  • Garfield, E 1972 The impact factor. Current Contents 10 25 3–8.

  • Garfield, E. (1994). The Thomson Reuters impact factor. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor.

  • Garfield, E 1999 Journal impact factor: a brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal 161:979–980.

  • Garfield, E 2006 The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association 295:90–93 .

  • Garfield, E 2009 The multi-dimensionality of journal impact. Scientometrics 78:355–374 .

  • Glänzel, W 2006 On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index. Science Focus 1:10–11.

  • Harzing, A. -W. (2007). Publish or Perish. http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm.

  • Harzing, A-W 2010 The Publish or Perish Book. Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd Melbourne.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hirsch, JE 2005 An index to quantify and individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:16569–16572 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hirst, G 1978 Discipline impact factors: a method for determining core journal list. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 29:171–172 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hood, W.W., & Wilson, C.S. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics 52, 291–314, reprinted (2006) In R. Braun, E. Garfield (eds.), Evaluations of Individual Scientists and Research Institutions (pp. 3–26). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Randić, M 2009 Citations versus limitations of citations: beyond Hirsch index. Scientometrics 80:809–818 .

  • Schubert, A, Braun, T 1996 Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 36:311–324 .

  • Simons, K 2008 The misused impact factor. Science 322:165 .

  • Vanclay, JK 2009 Bias in the journal impact factor. Scientometrics 78:3–12 .

  • Vanclay, J.K. (2012). Impact factor: outdated artifact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics (in press).

  • Williams, G 2007 Should we ditch impact factors?. British Medical Journal 334:568 .

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Scientometrics
Scientometrics
Print ISSN:
0138-9130
Online ISSN:
1588-2861

To see the editorial board, please visit the website of Springer Nature.

Manuscript submission: http://www.editorialmanager.com/scim/

For subscription options, please visit the website of Springer Nature.

Scientometrics
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation		 1978
Volumes
per Year		 1
Issues
per Year		 12
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address		 H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Publisher's
Address		 H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
CH-6330 Cham, Switzerland Gewerbestrasse 11.
Responsible
Publisher		 Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 0138-9130 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2861 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Aug 2024 35 1 1
Sep 2024 10 0 2
Oct 2024 55 0 0
Nov 2024 53 0 0
Dec 2024 27 0 0
Jan 2025 4 0 0
Feb 2025 0 0 0