How Come Scientists Uncritically Adopt and Embody Thomson's Bibliographic Impact Factor?
- 1 May 2008
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Epidemiology
- Vol. 19 (3) , 370-371
- https://doi.org/10.1097/ede.0b013e31816b73ab
Abstract
The bibliographic impact factor (BIF) of Thomson Scientific is sometimes not a valid scientometric indicator for a number of reasons. One major reason is the strong influence of the number of “source items” or “articles” for each journal that the company chooses each year as BIF’s denominator. The irresistible fascination with (and picturesque uses of) a construct as scientifically weak as BIF are simple reminders that scientists are embedded in and embody cultureKeywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Epidemiologists (of All People) Should Question Journal Impact FactorsEpidemiology, 2008
- Show me the dataThe Journal of cell biology, 2007
- Commentary: The ‘bibliographic impact factor’ and the still uncharted sociology of epidemiologyInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2006
- Commentary: Fifty years of citation indexingInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2006
- Quality of impact factors of general medical journalsBMJ, 2003
- The bibliographic "impact factor" of the Institute for Scientific Information: how relevant is it really for public health journals?Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1996