ArticleMinerva
Accounting for Impact? The Journal Impact Factor and the Making of Biomedical Research in the Netherlands.
Article in Minerva. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Kidney Disease: A Comprehensive Study and Directions for Future Research.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Changing publication practices and the typification of the journal article in science and technology studies.Social studies of science · 2022Article
- Choices of immediate open access and the relationship to journal ranking and publish-and-read deals.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Article
- Article
- Allonymous science: the politics of placing and shifting credit in public-private nutrition research.Life sciences, society and policy · 2020Article
- Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?F1000Research · 2020Article
- Filling in the gaps: The interpretation ofSocial studies of science · 2019Article
- Beyond Trust: Plagiarism and Truth.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- Why public dismissal of nutrition science makes sense: Post-truth, public accountability and dietary credibility.British food journal (Croydon, England) · 2018Article
- Gatekeepers of Reward: a Pilot Study on the Ethics of Editing and Competing Evaluations of Value.Journal of academic ethics · 2018Article
- Changing paradigm in the scientific publication process: Are we encouraging Science or Pseudoscience? Urgent need for introspection and self regulation.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2017Article
- The Value of Vagueness in the Politics of Authorship.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2017Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The range and types of performance metrics has recently proliferated in academic settings, with bibliometric indicators being particularly visible examples. One field that has traditionally been hospitable towards such indicators is biomedicine. Here the relative merits of bibliometrics are widely discussed, with debates often portraying them as heroes or villains. Despite a plethora of controversies, one of the most widely used indicators in this field is said to be the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). In this article we argue that much of the current debates around researchers' uses of the JIF in biomedicine can be classed as 'folk theories': explanatory accounts told among a community that seldom (if ever) get systematically checked. Such accounts rarely disclose how knowledge production itself becomes more-or-less consolidated around the JIF. Using ethnographic materials from different research sites in Dutch University Medical Centers, this article sheds new empirical and theoretical light on how performance metrics variously shape biomedical research on the 'shop floor.' Our detailed analysis underscores a need for further research into the constitutive effects of evaluative metrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.