The paper summarizes some basic features of the Garfield impact factor (GF). Accordingly, GF should be regarded as a scientometric indicator representing the relative contribution of journals to the total impact of information in a field. For calculating GF, both from theoretical and practical reasons the “ratio of the sums” method is recommended over the “mean of the ratios” method. Scientific advances are made by the most influential, presumably most frequently cited articles. The distribution of citations among the publications is skewed in journals. Consequently, the GF index will be influenced primarily by the highly cited papers. It follows, GF represents the most valuable part of the information in journals quantitatively, and even therefore it may be regarded as a reliable impact indicator.
Aksnes, DW 2003 Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation 12:159–170 .
Aksnes, DW, Sivertsen, G 2004 The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators. Scientometrics 59:213–224 .
Amin, M, Mabe, M 2000 Impact factors: Use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing 1:1–6.
Bergstrom, C. (2007). Scholarly communication. Eigenfactor: measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68, 1–3, http://www.eigenfactor.org/about.htm .
Bernal, JD 1939 The social function of science The M.I.T. Press Cambridge, MA.
Bornmann, L., Marx, W., & Schier H. (2009). Hirsch-type index values for organic chemistry journals: A comparison of new metrics with the journal imact factor. European Journal of Organic Chemistry, 10, 1471–1476.
Bornmann, L, Mutz, R, Hug, SE, Daniel, H-D 2011 A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics 5:346–359 .
Braun, T, Glänzel, W, Schubert, A 1990 Evaluation of citedness in analytical chemistry: How much is much?. Analytical Proceedings 27:38–41 .
Garfield, E 1979 Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities Wiley New York.
Garfield, E, Sher, JH 1963 New factors in evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation 14:195–201 .
Glänzel, W 2007 Characteristic sores and scales. A bibliometric analysis of subject characteristics based on long-term citation observation. Journal of Informetrics 1:92–102 .
Glänzel, W, Moed, HF 2002 Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics 53:171–193 .
Glänzel, W, Schubert, A 1992 Some facts and figures on highly cited papers in the sciences, 1981–1985. Scientometrics 25:373–380 .
Hirsch, JE 2005 An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:16569–16572 .
Jin, B 2006 h-index: An evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus 1:8–9.
Moed, HF 2002 The impact-factors debate: the ISI's uses and limits, towards a critical, informative, accurate and policy-relevant bibliometrics. Nature 415:731–732 .
Plomp, R 1990 The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy. Scientometrics 19:185–197 .
Plomp, R 1994 The highly cited papers of professors as an indicator of a research group's scientific performance. Scientometrics 29:377–393 .
Seglen, PO 1992 The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43:628–638 .
Seglen, PO 1997 Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 314:498–502 .
Vanclay, JK 2007 On the robustness of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58:1547–1550 .
Vanclay, JK 2008 Ranking forestry journals using the h-index. Journal of Informetrics 2:326–334 .
Vanclay, JK 2009 Bias in the journal impact factor. Scientometrics 78:3–12 .
Vanclay, J. K. (2012). Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics. doi: .
Vinkler, P 1996 Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators. Scientometrics 36:223–226 .
Vinkler, P 2000 Evaluation of the publication activity of research teams by means of scientometric indicators. Current Science 79:602–612.
Vinkler, P 2004 Characterization of the impact of sets of scientific papers: The Garfield (impact) factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55:431–435 .
Vinkler, P 2006 Composite scientometric indicators for evaluating publications of research institutes. Scientometrics 68:629–642 .
Vinkler, P 2009 The π-index: A new indicator for assessing scientific impact. Journal of Information Science 35:602–612 .
Vinkler, P 2010 The πv-index: A new indicator to characterize the impact of journals. Scientometrics 82:461–475 .
Vinkler, P 2010 The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators Woodhead Publishing Limited Cambridge 336 .
Vinkler, P 2011 Application of the distribution of citations among publications in scientometric evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62:1963–1978 .
Vinkler, P. (2012). The case of scientometricians with the “absolute relative” impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 254–264.