ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2017
The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most-Cited Clinical Trials on Gingival Recession Treatment: Trends in Flap Design, Biomaterials, and Global Contributions.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Advancing the impact of research through a dissemination-focused special interest group.BMJ open · 2025Review
- Preterm Birth Research in Southeast Asia and its Association with Socioeconomic Determinants and Burden of Disease: A Bibliometric Analysis.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Article
- Article
- Research rating: Some technicalities.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2022Review
- Bibliometric analysis of publication activity in the field of familial Mediterranean fever in 2010-2019: a Scopus-based study.Rheumatology international · 2021Article
- Research Trends on the Rotator Cuff Tendon: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Past 2 Decades.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Article
- ABC Cardiol - Our Home of the Cardiovascular Scientific Research.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
- Nutrition in times of Covid-19, how to trust the deluge of scientific information.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2020Review
- Social media for research, education and practice in rheumatology.Rheumatology international · 2020Review
- Journal Impact Factor: Widely Used, Misused and Abused.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2019Article
- Improving Scientific Writing Skills and Publishing Capacity by Developing University-Based Editing System and Writing Programs.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Review
- Systematic Reviews: Challenges for Their Justification, Related Comprehensive Searches, and Implications.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Article
- Bibliometric Indices of Scientific Journals: Time to overcome the obsession and think beyond the Impact Factor.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2017Review
- Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science.Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a single citation metric, which is widely employed for ranking journals and choosing target journals, but is also misused as the proxy of the quality of individual articles and academic achievements of authors. This article analyzes Scopus-based publication activity on the JIF and overviews some of the numerous misuses of the JIF, global initiatives to overcome the 'obsession' with impact factors, and emerging strategies to revise the concept of the scholarly impact. The growing number of articles on the JIF, most of which are in English, reflects interest of experts in journal editing and scientometrics toward its uses, misuses, and options to overcome related problems. Solely displaying values of the JIFs on the journal websites is criticized by experts as these average metrics do not reflect skewness of citation distribution of individual articles. Emerging strategies suggest to complement the JIFs with citation plots and alternative metrics, reflecting uses of individual articles in terms of downloads and distribution of related information through social media and networking platforms. It is also proposed to revise the original formula of the JIF calculation and embrace the concept of the impact and importance of individual articles. The latter is largely dependent on ethical soundness of the journal instructions, proper editing and structuring of articles, efforts to promote related information through social media, and endorsements of professional societies.
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.