Comments on: Impact Factor Boxing 2009 http://duncan.hull.name/2009/06/23/impact-factor-boxing/ A personal laboratory notebook Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:39:52 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Science Spotlight: February 16th, 2010 | Next Generation Science http://duncan.hull.name/2009/06/23/impact-factor-boxing/#comment-3752 Science Spotlight: February 16th, 2010 | Next Generation Science Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:16:35 +0000 http://duncan.hull.name/?p=2100#comment-3752 [...] Impact Factor Boxing 2009 | O’Really? [...] [...] Impact Factor Boxing 2009 | O’Really? [...]

]]> By: Duncan http://duncan.hull.name/2009/06/23/impact-factor-boxing/#comment-3302 Duncan Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:34:26 +0000 http://duncan.hull.name/?p=2100#comment-3302 Hi Dr. Aust, thanks for the references, they look interesting! Hi Dr. Aust, thanks for the references, they look interesting!

]]> By: draust http://duncan.hull.name/2009/06/23/impact-factor-boxing/#comment-3293 draust Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:22:04 +0000 http://duncan.hull.name/?p=2100#comment-3293 Another lucid critique of Impact factors is <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000999" rel="nofollow">here</a> - the point being that for specialist fields IFs overestimate the impact / influence of papers published in the general journals (as they "inherit" the big IF factor derived from the journal), and underestimate the influence of papers published in the specialist journals (where IFs are low). Of course, even if one counts citations to/from individual papers, there are still major problems with inferring "quality" from this, especially in big fields. One reason is that a lot of readers/citers will still "access" the literature via review articles, so that a determining factor in whether a primary data paper gets cited comes to be whether it got cited in the better read reviews in the field. For an example of how this can distort the whole picture of the evidence see <a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/339/jul20_3/b2680" rel="nofollow">here.</a> Another lucid critique of Impact factors is here – the point being that for specialist fields IFs overestimate the impact / influence of papers published in the general journals (as they “inherit” the big IF factor derived from the journal), and underestimate the influence of papers published in the specialist journals (where IFs are low).

Of course, even if one counts citations to/from individual papers, there are still major problems with inferring “quality” from this, especially in big fields. One reason is that a lot of readers/citers will still “access” the literature via review articles, so that a determining factor in whether a primary data paper gets cited comes to be whether it got cited in the better read reviews in the field. For an example of how this can distort the whole picture of the evidence see here.

]]> By: Duncan http://duncan.hull.name/2009/06/23/impact-factor-boxing/#comment-2977 Duncan Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:00:02 +0000 http://duncan.hull.name/?p=2100#comment-2977 Hi Richard, if I've understood it right, Eigenfactor is the Google <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank" rel="nofollow">PageRank algorithm</a> applied to journals. Instead of all citations being counted as equal (regardless of where they come from) some citations are more important that others. E.g. if a paper is cited by an article in Nature (say) then that counts for more than a citation from the International Journal of Molecular Helminthology (say). This contrasts with the ISI Impact Factor where all citations are equal, at least, all the ones they decide to count anyway. Hi Richard, if I’ve understood it right, Eigenfactor is the Google PageRank algorithm applied to journals. Instead of all citations being counted as equal (regardless of where they come from) some citations are more important that others. E.g. if a paper is cited by an article in Nature (say) then that counts for more than a citation from the International Journal of Molecular Helminthology (say). This contrasts with the ISI Impact Factor where all citations are equal, at least, all the ones they decide to count anyway.

]]> By: Richard Wintle http://duncan.hull.name/2009/06/23/impact-factor-boxing/#comment-2975 Richard Wintle Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:49:53 +0000 http://duncan.hull.name/?p=2100#comment-2975 Does anyone actually read PNAS? It is true, as I'm sure you know, that the number of citations reported by, say, ISI, and by Google Scholar, are never the same and can be radically different. This, of course, leads logically to the method some folks use: look up your article in both, and use the higher of the two numbers. All these other factors though... I dunno what to make of them. Eigenfactors? Whazzat? [visiting via Richard Grant's blog at Nature Network, which I'm sure has an ENORMOUS Eigenthingy] Does anyone actually read PNAS?

It is true, as I’m sure you know, that the number of citations reported by, say, ISI, and by Google Scholar, are never the same and can be radically different. This, of course, leads logically to the method some folks use: look up your article in both, and use the higher of the two numbers.

All these other factors though… I dunno what to make of them. Eigenfactors? Whazzat?

[visiting via Richard Grant's blog at Nature Network, which I'm sure has an ENORMOUS Eigenthingy]

]]>