ArticleF1000Research2020
Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?
Article in F1000Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How do we classify organ involvement in Chagas disease? A systematic review of organ involvement since 1909, Highlighting the urgent need for a universal classification system in Chronic Chagas disease.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Methodological and reporting quality evaluation of meta-analyses on the Chinese herbal preparation Zheng Qing Feng Tong Ning for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Pooled it
- What's the impact of an impact factor? And why CONJ should stay out of the competition.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2026Article
- Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Navigating the academic waters: Strategies to avoid predatory journals and publish in indexed journals.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Review
- A pilot study investigating the relationship between journal impact factor and methodological quality of real-world observational studies.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- Research team diversity impacts scientific output in allergy and immunology programs.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Article
- Review
- Journal metrics of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals - A cross-sectional, comparative study.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Perspectives on scientific error.Royal Society open science · 2023Review
- Anchoring effects in the assessment of papers: An empirical survey of citing authors.PloS one · 2023Article
- A comparison of scientometric data and publication policies of ophthalmology journals.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Bibliometric Analysis of Major Neurosurgical Publications 2011-2020, Part 2: Journal, Author, Yearly Publication Trends, and Citation Related Metrics.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2022Article
- Measuring the growing impact ofBMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2022Article
- Anchoring effects in the assessment of papers: The proposal for an empirical survey of citing authors.PloS one · 2021Article
- Citation report: the nightmares and dreams of the editor: we grew 30.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2021Article
- Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?F1000Research · 2020Article
- Evidence of Modeling Impact in Development of Policies for Controlling the Opioid Epidemic and Improving Public Health: A Scoping Review.Substance abuse : research and treatment · 2019Article
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
Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. Using computer simulations, we demonstrate that under certain conditions the number of citations an article has received is a more accurate indicator of the value of the article than the impact factor. However, under other conditions, the impact factor is a more accurate indicator. It is important to critically discuss the dominant role of the impact factor in research evaluations, but the discussion should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments. Instead, the primary focus should be on the socio-technical implications of the use of the impact factor.
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.