[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Tuesday, September 03, 2013, IP: 117.199.223.38] || Click here to download free Android application for this journal
REVIEW ARTICLE
Impact factor and other standardized measures of journal
citation: A perspective
Vijay Prakash Mathur, Ashutosh Sharma1
Assistant Professor, Centre for
Dental Education and Research,
All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, New Delhi 110029,
India, 1Consultant, Dr. Moopen’s
polyclinic, Dubai, UAE
Received
ABSTRACT
: 24-12-07
Review completed : 08-08-08
Accepted
: 25-08-08
PubMed ID
: 19336866
DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.49072
The impact factor of journals has been widely used as glory quotients. Despite its limitations,
this citation metric is widely used to reflect scientific merit and standing in one’s field. Apart
from the impact factor, other bibliometric indicators are also available but are not as popular
among decision makers. These indicators are the immediacy index and cited half-life. The
impact factor itself is affected by a wide range of sociological and statistical factors. This paper
discusses the limitations of the impact factor with suggestions of how it can be used and how
it should not be used. It also discusses how other bibliometric indicators can be used to assess
the quality of publications.
Key words: Bibliometric indicators, cited half life, impact factor, immediacy index, publication
quality
In the past, a scientiÞc publication used to be a more leisurely
venture. The present day scenario however, is completely
different. With publication patterns of any investigator
becoming the pervasive arbiters of his/her scientiÞc career,[1]
modern scientists are perpetually in a state of dilemma
because increasingly their publications are now being used
for the evaluation of their research quality. That is why the
presumed quality of a deÞned set of journals has become the
principle evaluation criteria.[2] Indubitably, the hallmark of
academic achievement is to have a publication/publications
in a high impact journal. Not far from this scenario are the
confused librarians and journal editors. A librarian has to
identify “the core” of his/her journal collection[3] and the
editor needs to evaluate if the journal is meeting desired
standards. With the escalating cost of journals on one hand
and budgetary limitations on the other, the librarian and
the faculty are often called upon to identify a core of quality
journals for an institutes’ library using suitable assessment
criteria.[4] As a consequence, the scientiÞc investigator,
the editor, and the librarian have one thing in common
i.e., they are required to base their decisions on certain
objective measures of assessing journal quality. Over the
past 50 years, these measures of assessing journal quality,
also known as bibliometric indicators, have emerged as the
chief quantitative measures of the quality of the research
papers published, the authors, and that of the institution
with which these researchers are associated.
Address for correspondence:
Dr. Vijay Prakash Mathur,
E-mail: vijaymathur7@hotmail.com
81
The objectives of this paper are to provide a historical
backdrop of such quantitative measures, to discuss their
limitations, and to provide suggestions for the appropriate
use of these measures.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Gross and Gross Þrst reported the use of counting references
to rank scientiÞc journals.[5] It was GarÞeld and Sher of the
Institute of ScientiÞc Information (ISI) who Þrst suggested
how reference counting could measure impact but the
term impact factor was not used until the publication of
the 1961 Science Citation Index (SCI) in 1963.[5] The ISI,
which was founded by Eugene GarÞeld, is a Philadelphiabased company and is presently owned by the Thomson
Corporation of Toronto. The aim of creating the Journal
Impact Factor (JIF) was to help select journals for the SCI.
The inventors recognized a core group of highly cited large
journals that needed to be covered in the SCI, however, they
felt that this way a small but important group of review
journals would go unrecognized. As a result, the JIF was
created to compare journals regardless of their size.[6] A biproduct of the SCI was the Journal Citation Reports (JCR),
which was Þrst published in 1975. From 1975 to 1989, the
JCR appeared as supplementary volumes in the annual SCI.
From 1990 to 1994, they have appeared in microÞche and in
1995 a CDROM edition was launched.[5] The current JCRs
have two editions covering journals in the areas of science,
technology, and social sciences. These JCRs cover a total of
8,400 journals with a total of 5,876 journals from the science
and technology industries alone.
Indian J Dent Res, 20(1), 2009
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Tuesday, September 03, 2013, IP: 117.199.223.38] || Click here to download free Android application for this journal
Impact factor and other standardized measures
Using optical character recognition software, the journals
are Þrst scanned. To store a research paper in its database,
ISI employees highlight the following indicators/Þelds:
author, address, journal title, volume, year, and page
number. Next, a computer takes a few bytes of information
from each highlighted Þeld to build up an identifying code
or ‘tag’ that is unique to that paper. A similar data capture
and tagging process occurs for the references at the end of
the paper. Algorithms then compare the citation tags with
any article tags already in the database and each successful
match counts as a citation.[6]
The ISI has three standardized measures for calculating the
citations and articles received over time. These measures are
impact factor, immediacy index, and cited half life.
SOME KEY DEFINITIONS
Impact factor
The impact factor is deÞned as: the number of times articles
from a journal are cited within 2 years divided by the total
number of articles published in the same journal during the
2-year period. The impact factor of a journal is intended to
measure how often, on average, authors cite moderately
recent articles from that particular journal.
[All citations of 2000-2001
issues]
2002 impact factor =
[number of articles published in the
2000-2001 issues)
The impact factor is a way of measuring which journal
receives citations to its articles over time. The build up of
citations tends to follow a curve like that shown in Figure 1.
Citations for articles published in a given year rise sharply
to a peak between 2 and 6 years after publication. From this
peak, citations decline exponentially. The citation curve of
any journal can be described by the relative size of the curve
in terms of the area under the line, the extent to which
Mathur and Sharma
the peak of the curve is close to the origin, and the rate of
decline of the curve. The window period counted is 2 years.
Immediacy index
The immediacy index of journal is intended to measure how
often, on average, authors cite very recent articles form
that particular journal, and hence how rapidly the average
paper from that journal is adopted into the literature. The
immediacy index gives a measure of the skewness of the
curve, i.e., the extent to which the peak of the curve lies
near to the origin of the graph [Figure 1].
Cited half-life
The cited half-life is the calculated point (age in year)
where 50% of the citations are under the age and 50%
of the citations are over that age. The cited half-life is a
measure of the rate of decline of the citation curve. It is the
number of years that the number of current citations takes
to decline to 50% of its initial value (the cited half-life is
6 years in the example given in Figure 1). It is a measure
of how long articles in a journal continue to be cited after
publication.
OPTIMUM USE OF BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS
Measuring the scientific quality of a publication is a
notoriously difficult task. The traditional method of
evaluation has been peer review. However, peer review is
time consuming and experts with available time are a scarce
commodity.[7] Often, some quantitative measurement of
bibliometric analysis like the JIF is used by decision-makers
to ascertain the quality of research. This practice has its
proponents and opponents. Much controversy has been
generated on the use of this citation metric for ranking the
quality of the research of individuals and research groups.
Despite this, many in the biomedical sciences community
continue to pay attention to the impact factor based rankings
and base their decisions on these. The dilemma is can we
really do without it? Or we need to understand it completely
and then use it. The following section addresses these issues
with the help of Þgures by Amin and Mabe. As pointed out
by Amin and Mabe,[8] the JIF is affected by sociological and
statistical factors like the type of journal, subject area of the
journal, size of the journal, etc.
Type of discipline and its effect on citation density
As seen in Figure 2, the impact factor varies from subject to
subject, it being higher in fundamental and pure subject areas
and lower in specialized or applied Þelds. This means that as
far as is possible, the comparison of impact factors should only
be made for journals in the same subject area.[8]
Number of authors and impact factor
Figure 1: Generalized citation curve (Courtesy: M. Amin, Elsevier Science)
Indian J Dent Res, 20(1), 2009
Also closely connected to the subject area is the effect
of the number of authors in a paper, which varies from
subject to subject [Figure 3]. The number of multiple
82
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Tuesday, September 03, 2013, IP: 117.199.223.38] || Click here to download free Android application for this journal
Impact factor and other standardized measures
Mathur and Sharma
authors is generally fewer in the social sciences and more
in fundamental life sciences.[8] Since many authors have
a tendency to cite their own work, this practice usually
distorts the true picture.[9] Most unfortunate is the tendency
to cite one’s own work, however tangential it might be to the
topic at hand.[9] Therefore, one should use a sense of scientiÞc
propriety while citing one’s own or parallel work.
Publication type and impact factor
Within the same subject area, there may also be a marked
variation in the impact factor [Figure 4]. This is inßuenced
by the type of the journal and the articles. In a sense, the
impact factor may be unintentionally tweaked in rapid
publication journals and articles of the current review type[9]
because of a virtual deluge of papers published. It is natural
that the discerning reader is always on the lookout for a
review on the topic of interest.[1] Without doubt there is
always a lot more information in a review than in original
papers. Consequently, journals with a high number of
reviews have an advantage in the impact factor league over
those that published primary research papers. Furthermore,
journals that are very selective or even restrictive can reduce
the number of papers per issue and limit them to currently
trendy topics. This may be affecting their impact factor
rating in a positive way.[1]
Journal size and impact factor
The size of the journal here means the number of articles
published per annum and the size of the measurement
window, which in case of the JCR is 2 years. For example,
if a large number of journals (4,000, arranged in quartiles
based on the size of the journal) are examined and the
means variation in impact factor from one year to the
next is plotted against the size of the journal, there is a
clear correlation between the extent of the impact factor
ßuctuation [Figure 5]. This means that journal size should
always be taken into consideration when impact factors
are compared.
Time lag in publication and impact factor
Impact factor is also affected by the time taken by the
reviewers of a journal to assess a submitted research
publication. If reviewing and publications are delayed and
references are no longer current, they will not be included
in the impact calculation. As shown by Opthof,[10] this point
has great relevance for both authors and reviewers alike.
Since the impact factor calculation by the JCR works on a
2-year time frame, it really favors research that takes less
time to complete. Because research in most branches of
medicine takes longer than that, it is a type of unsolicited
penalty on the investigators. So what can the editors and
3.15
2.3
1.7
1.6
1.55
1.4
1.2
1.15
1.1
0.65
0.65
0.45
Figure 2: Subject variation in impact factors (Courtesy: M. Amin, Elsevier Science)
Figure 3: Impact factors and numbers of authors per paper
Figure 4: Impact factors and journal type
Figure 5: Impact factor ßuctuation versus journal size
83
Indian J Dent Res, 20(1), 2009
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Tuesday, September 03, 2013, IP: 117.199.223.38] || Click here to download free Android application for this journal
Impact factor and other standardized measures
the editorial board do about it? They can make efforts to
reduce the review time and enhance the publication time.
The review process should be rigorous yet fast.
Title/Abstract and the impact factor
The impact factor rating may also be affected by the way an
author writes the abstract and the title of his/her article. As
suggested by Sieck,[11] words and phrases used throughout
the entire abstract and title of an article become the key
words for Þnding an article in an online database. Thus,
selection of words and phrases is critical to ensuring that an
article is found and more importantly referenced in future
publications.
Journal title and the impact factor
The impact factor calculation is also effected by the title of
a journal as explained by Lindhe.[12] When a journal changes
its name, the old and new titles are not uniÞed. A suitable
example is the Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research
(SJDR) now called the European Journal of Oral Sciences.
The SJDR has a history of 105 yeas of continuous publication,
however, when the titled was changed in 1996, the impact
factor for that year was split as both the journals were now
listed with an impact factor of 1.14 for the former and 0.597
for the latter, respectively.
Language and the impact factor
As the English language dominates international research
and clinical literature, something that displeases the editors
of most foreign language journals, is that publications in
these foreign language journals are not included in the
calculation of the impact factor.[13] Higher impact work is
mostly reported in English and the availability of a work in
English alone increases its citation.
Mathur and Sharma
according to some, is more relevant. Citation half-life is
the number of publication years from the current year
that accounts for 50% of the current citations received.
This citation metric provides an estimate of how long a
publication will continue to impact the literature.
CONCLUSION
Now one may ask, if the assessment of intellectual salience
is being trivialized by the use of a system that has so many
imperfections,[9] then why is it being done? Why are the
journals that have the highest impact factors considered to
be the best? Why is it always that a journal in which it is the
most difÞcult to have an article accepted has a high impact
factor?[14] If science should be judged by its content and
not its wrapping then why undermine supplant true peer
review? With so many questions the most suitable answers
we believe were given by Hoeffel[15] and GarÞeld[14] who
expressed the situation succinctly as shown below:
“Impact factors is not a perfect tool to measure the quality
of articles but there is nothing better and it has the
advantage of already being in existence and is, therefore,
a good technique for scientiÞc evaluation. Experience has
shown that in each specialty the best journals are those
in which it is most difÞcult to have an article accepted,
and these are the journals that have a high impact factor.
These journals existed long before the impact factor was
devised. The use of impact factor as a measure of quality is
widespread because it Þts well with the opinion we have
in each Þeld of the best journals in our specialty”.[15] Finally
GarÞeld “cautioned the use of impact factor to weigh the
inßuence of a paper amounts to a prediction, albeit coloured
by probabilities.”[14]
Variability in impact factor due to numerator/
denominator
REFERENCES
The SCI database includes only normal articles, notes,
and reviews as citable items in the denominator, but
citation of all types of articles, such as editorials, letters,
and meeting abstracts are included in the numerator. It
has been conclusively shown that the inclusion of these
additional items causes a substantial increase in the impact
factor. Editors could raise the impact factor of a journal by
frequent reference to their previous editorials, since the
database makes no correction for self-citation, or by running
a large correspondence section.[7] This so called numerator/
denominator problem exempliÞes why considerable care
needs to be taken when using impact factors.[8]
1.
2.
Citation half-life or impact factor
9.
Another controversial issue is whether the impact factor
rating or the cited half-life of a publication is more relevant?
While the impact factor only tells us about how many
times an article has been cited, it is the cited half-life that,
Indian J Dent Res, 20(1), 2009
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
Gannon F. The impact of the impact factor. EMBO Rep 2000;1:293.
Martin-Sempere MJ, Rey-rocha J and Garzon-Garcia B. Assessing
quality of domestic scientific journals in genographically oriented
disciplines: Scientists’ judgments versus citations. Res Eval
2002;11:149-54.
Buchtel HA. Libraries and the Academy. Cortex 2001;37:455-6.
Davis PM. Where to spend our e-journal money? Defining a university
library’s core collection through citation analysis. Vol. 2. Baltimore,
USA: John Hopkins University Press; 2002. p. 155-66.
Garfield E. How cam impact factors be improved? Br Med J
1996;313:411-3.
Adam D. The counting house. Nature 2002;415:726-9.
Whitehouse GH. Citation rates and impact factors: should they matter?
Br J Radiol 2001;72:1-3.
Amin M, Mabe M. Impact factors: Use and abuse. Perspect Publishing
2000;1:1-6.
Adams KM. Impact factors: Aiming at the wrong target. Cortex
2001;37:600-3.
Opthof T. Submission, acceptance rate, rapid review system and impact
factor. Cardiovasc Res 1999;41:1-4.
Sieck GC. The “impact factor”: What it means to the impact of applied
physiology. J Appl Physiol 2000;89:865-6.
84
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Tuesday, September 03, 2013, IP: 117.199.223.38] || Click here to download free Android application for this journal
Impact factor and other standardized measures
12.
13.
14.
15.
Linde A. On the pitfalls of journal ranking by impact factor. Eur J Oral
Sci 1998;106:525-6.
Seglen PO. Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators
of research quality. Allergy 1997;52:1050-6.
Garfield E. Journal impact factor: A brief review. CMAJ 1999;161:979-80.
Hoeffel C. Journal impact factors. Allergy 1998;53:1225.
Mathur and Sharma
How to cite this article: Mathur VP, Sharma A. Impact factor and other
standardized measures of journal citation: A perspective.Indian J Dent Res
2009;20:81-5.
Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared.
BOOK REVIEW
Shafer’s Textbook of Oral Pathology
Shafer’s Textbook of Oral Pathology was Þrst published in 1958 by Drs. Shafer WG, Hine MK, and Levy BM. Since
its Þrst edition there have been constant changes in concepts, new entities, and advances in the Þeld of clinical,
histopathological, and molecular pathology which have always warranted revision. With this aim, Drs. Rajendran R and
Sivapathasundharam B revised and updated the fourth edition after a long span of 23 years. Keeping in mind the wide
readership of this book, and the need to upgrade even the minor changes in the concepts, the authors have upgraded
the text further, as the sixth edition of Shafer’s Textbook of Oral Pathology.
Dr. R. Rajendran is a renowned oral pathologist who has served as Professor and Head, Department of Oral Pathology
in Government Dental Colleges of Trivandrum and Kottayam. He is currently working as Professor in Division of Oral
Pathology, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He has large number of original
research and review publications to his credit in reputed national and international journals.
Dr. B. Sivapathasundharam, widely known as Honorary Editor, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, and Editorin-Chief of Indian Journal of Dental Research and Journal of Forensic Odontology, is currently working as Professor and
Head, Department of Oral Pathology, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College, Chennai, India. He has several publications in
reputed national and international journals.
The sixth edition has been published in a new format with four-color printing and increased font size, to enable easy
readability. With the change in format of printing, most of the Þgures are colored and new Þgures and illustrations have
been incorporated for an easier understanding. The various updates in the Þeld of oral pathology have been included in
all the chapters and also in the references section at the end of each chapter. Changes and updates in the Þeld of HIV
infection, forensic odontology, tropical epidemiology, and prevention of dental caries are included in this edition.
A chapter on ‘histotechniques, staining, and immunohistochemistry’ is highly essential in any oral pathology textbook as
these techniques go hand-in-hand with oral pathology, and every oral pathologist is deemed to be aware of these techniques
and the various updates in them. With this in mind, the authors have included a new chapter on histotechniques,
staining, and immunohistochemistry.
With these additional features and updated text, I am sure this book will be of immense help to undergraduate and
postgraduate students and the dental faculty.
TR Saraswathi
Professor, Department of Oral Pathology
Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India.
85
View publication stats
Indian J Dent Res, 20(1), 2009