Assessing Impact of Biomedical Scholarship in the Information Age: Observations on the Evolution of Biomedical Publishing and a Proposal for a New Metric
Overview
Overview
Authors
Authors
Affiliations
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract
This editorial contains a discussion on the state of the art of biomedical publication and the history and development of indexing, its evolution, and complexity. A traditional method of journal assessment is in use-the journal impact factor-but it is compromised by well-documented deficiencies. Present-day alternatives to the journal impact factor are listed, and a proposal to develop a novel metric of merit in publication, the influence factor, is described.
References
1.
Garfield E
. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006; 295(1):90-3.
DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.1.90.
View
2.
Satyanarayana K, Sharma A
. Impact factor: time to move on. Indian J Med Res. 2008; 127(1):4-6.
View
3.
Falagas M, Kouranos V, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos D
. Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J. 2008; 22(8):2623-8.
DOI: 10.1096/fj.08-107938.
View
4.
Chew M, Villanueva E, Van Der Weyden M
. Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994-2005) and their Editors' views. J R Soc Med. 2007; 100(3):142-50.
PMC: 1809163.
DOI: 10.1177/014107680710000313.
View
5.
Greenwood D
. Reliability of journal impact factor rankings. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7:48.
PMC: 2206035.
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-48.
View