Impact factor, an inadequate yardstick
From MaRDI portal
Publication:2076019
Summary: Our aim is twofold. On the one hand we discuss the limitations of the impact factor as a criterion for assessing mathematical journals, and suggest substituting a set of different types of indicators including the SCImago Journal Rank. On the other, we state that scientometrics such as the impact factor cannot be used alone in evaluating researchers' work: one must have both a package of metrics as an objective measure and peer review by human beings as a subjective judgement.
Recommendations
Cited in
(17)- Impact factor distribution revisited
- Handbook of bibliometric indicators. Quantitative tools for studying and evaluating research
- Mathematical properties of weighted impact factors based on measures of prestige of the citing journals
- Nefarious numbers
- Analysis and models in interdisciplinary mathematics 2015
- Nefarious numbers
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 5302939 (Why is no real title available?)
- Measuring journals
- Citation statistics
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1095835 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2098034 (Why is no real title available?)
- Joint committee on quantitative assessment of research: citation statistics
- Mathematical models in medicine, business and engineering 2009: Why applied mathematicians should interact with others and open ways and practices
- Nefarious numbers
- Negligible numbers
- Qualitative judgement of research impact: domain taxonomy as a fundamental framework for judgement of the quality of research
- The illusion of scientific authority: from misleading propaganda to dormant realities
This page was built for publication: Impact factor, an inadequate yardstick
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2076019)
