View source for Impact factor

{{Short description|Measure of relative importance of a journal}}
{{About|a measure of journal influence|other similar metrics|Citation impact}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2020}}
{{Citation metrics}}

The '''impact factor''' ('''IF''') or '''journal impact factor''' ('''JIF''') of an [[academic journal]] is a type of [[journal ranking]]. Journals with higher impact factor values are considered more prestigious or important within their field.

The Impact Factor of a journal reflects the yearly mean number of article [[citation]]s published in the last two years. While frequently used by universities and funding bodies to decide on promotion and research proposals, it has been criticised for distorting good scientific practices.<ref name="Waltman 366">{{cite journal |last1=Waltman |first1=Ludo |last2=Traag |first2=Vincent Antonio |date=2021-03-01 |title=Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not? |journal=[[F1000Research]] |volume=9 |page=366 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.23418.2 |pmc=7974631 |pmid=33796272 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Curry 2018" /><ref name="nih2016">{{cite journal |last1=Hutchins |first1=BI |last2=Yuan |first2=X |last3=Anderson |first3=JM |last4=Santangelo |first4=GM |title=Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level. |journal=PLOS Biology |date=September 2016 |volume=14 |issue=9 |pages=e1002541 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541 |pmid=27599104|pmc=5012559 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Impact Factor is a [[scientometric]] index calculated by [[Clarivate|Clarivate's]] [[Web of Science]].

==History==
The impact factor was devised by [[Eugene Garfield]], the founder of the [[Institute for Scientific Information]] (ISI) in Philadelphia. Impact factors began to be calculated yearly starting from 1975 for journals listed in the ''[[Journal Citation Reports]]'' (JCR). ISI was acquired by [[Thomson Scientific & Healthcare]] in 1992,<ref>{{cite journal |title=Thomson Corporation acquired ISI |journal=[[Online (magazine)|Online]] | url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-12394745.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515103411/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-12394745.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=2013-05-15 |date=July 1992 |access-date=2012-02-26}}</ref> and became known as Thomson ISI. In 2018, [[Thomson Reuters|Thomson-Reuters]] spun off and sold ISI to [[Onex Corporation]] and [[Baring Private Equity Asia]].<ref>{{Cite press release |title=Acquisition of the Thomson Reuters Intellectual Property and Science Business by Onex and Baring Asia Completed |date=3 October 2016 |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/acquisition-of-the-thomson-reuters-intellectual-property-and-science-business-by-onex-and-baring-asia-completed-300337402.html}}</ref> They founded a new corporation, Clarivate, which is now the publisher of the JCR.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/journal-citation-reports/ |title=Journal Citation Reports |website=Web of Science Group |access-date=2019-09-14}}</ref>

==Calculation==
In any given year, the two-year journal impact factor is the ratio between the number of citations received in that year for publications in that journal that were published in the two preceding years and the total number of "citable items" published in that journal during the two preceding years:<ref name="Web of Science Group 2019">{{cite web |title=Web of Science Group |website=Web of Science Group |date=2019-08-05 |url=https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/essays/impact-factor/ |access-date=2020-07-28}}</ref><ref name=garfield/>

<math display=block>\text{IF}_y = \frac{\text{Citations}_y}{\text{Publications}_{y-1} + \text{Publications}_{y-2}}.</math>

For example, [[Nature (journal)|''Nature'']] had an impact factor of 41.577 in 2017:<ref name=WoS>{{cite book |year=2018 |chapter=Nature |title=2017 Journal Citation Reports |publisher=[[Thomson Reuters]] |edition=Science |series=[[Web of Science]]}}</ref>

<math display=block>\text{IF}_{2017} = \frac{\text{Citations}_{2017}}{\text{Publications}_{2016} + \text{Publications}_{2015}} = \frac{74090}{880 + 902} = 41.577.</math>

This means that, on average, its papers published in 2015 and 2016 received roughly 42 citations each in 2017. 2017 impact factors are reported in 2018; they cannot be calculated until all of the 2017 publications have been processed by the indexing agency.

The value of impact factor depends on how to define "citations" and "publications"; the latter are often referred to as "citable items". In current practice, both "citations" and "publications" are defined exclusively by ISI as follows. "Publications" are items that are classed as "article", "review" or "proceedings paper"<ref name="McVeighMann2009"/> in the Web of Science (WoS) database; other items like editorials, corrections, notes, retractions and discussions are excluded. WoS is accessible to all registered users, who can independently verify the number of citable items for a given journal. In contrast, the number of citations is extracted not from the WoS database, but from a dedicated JCR database, which is not accessible to general readers. Hence, the commonly used "JCR Impact Factor" is a proprietary value, which is defined and calculated by ISI and can not be verified by external users.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1087/20110208 |title=Casting a wide net: The Journal Impact Factor numerator |journal=Learned Publishing |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=133–137 |year=2011 |vauthors=Hubbard SC, McVeigh ME |s2cid=20172401|doi-access=free }}</ref>

New journals, which are indexed from their first published issue, will receive an impact factor after two years of indexing; in this case, the citations to the year prior to volume 1, and the number of articles published in the year prior to volume&nbsp;1, are known zero values. Journals that are indexed starting with a volume other than the first volume will not get an impact factor until they have been indexed for three years. Occasionally, ''Journal Citation Reports'' assigns an impact factor to new journals with less than two years of indexing, based on partial citation data.<ref>{{cite web |date=24 June 2013 |title=RSC Advances receives its first partial impact factor |url=http://blogs.rsc.org/ra/2013/06/24/rsc-advances-receives-its-first-partial-impact-factor/ |website=RSC Advances Blog |access-date=16 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Konforti |first1=Boyana |title=Our first (partial) impact factor and our continuing (full) story |url=https://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/irst-partial-impact-factor-and-our-continuing-full-story |work=Cell Mentor |date=30 July 2014 }}</ref> The calculation always uses two complete and known years of item counts, but for new titles one of the known counts is zero. Annuals and other irregular publications sometimes publish no items in a particular year, affecting the count. The impact factor relates to a specific time period; it is possible to calculate it for any desired period. For example, the JCR also includes a '''five-year impact factor''', which is calculated by dividing the number of citations to the journal in a given year by the number of articles published in that journal in the previous five years.<ref name=newJCR>{{cite web |url=http://www.thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/sci/350008 |title=JCR with Eigenfactor |access-date=2009-08-26 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100102180714/http://thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/sci/350008 |archive-date=2010-01-02}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://apa.org/pubs/journals/5-year-impact-factor.aspx |title=ISI 5-Year Impact Factor |website=APA |access-date=2017-11-12}}</ref>

==Use==
While originally invented as a tool to help university librarians to decide which journals to purchase, the impact factor soon became used as a measure for judging academic success. This use of impact factors was summarised by Hoeffel in 1998:<ref name=":1">{{cite journal |vauthors=Hoeffel C |title=Journal impact factors |journal=Allergy |volume=53 |issue=12 |pages=1225 |date=December 1998 |pmid=9930604 |doi=10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03848.x |s2cid=5773127}}</ref>

<blockquote>Impact Factor is not a perfect tool to measure the quality of articles but there is nothing better and it has the advantage of already being in existence and is, therefore, a good technique for scientific evaluation. Experience has shown that in each specialty the best journals are those in which it is most difficult to have an article accepted, and these are the journals that have a high impact factor. Most of these journals existed long before the impact factor was devised. The use of impact factor as a measure of quality is widespread because it fits well with the opinion we have in each field of the best journals in our specialty....In conclusion, prestigious journals publish papers of high level. Therefore, their impact factor is high, and not the contrary.</blockquote>

As impact factors are a journal-level metric, rather than an article- or individual-level metric, this use is controversial. Eugene Garfield, the inventor of the JIF agreed with Hoeffel,<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Garfield E |title=The history and meaning of the journal impact factor |journal=JAMA |volume=295 |issue=1 |pages=90–3 |date=January 2006 |pmid=16391221 |doi=10.1001/jama.295.1.90 |bibcode=2006JAMA..295...90G|s2cid=31183037 }}</ref> but warned about the "misuse in evaluating individuals" because there is "a wide variation [of citations] from article to article within a single journal".<ref name="garfield98">{{cite journal |vauthors=Garfield E |title=[The impact factor and its proper application] |journal=Der Unfallchirurg |volume=101 |issue=6 |pages=413–4 |date=June 1998 |pmid=9677838 |url=http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/derunfallchirurg_v101(6)p413y1998english.html}}</ref> Despite this warning, the use of the JIF has evolved, playing a key role in the process of assessing individual researchers, their job applications and their funding proposals. In 2007, ''The Journal of Cell Biology'' noted that:

<blockquote>Impact factor data ... have a strong influence on the scientific community, affecting decisions on where to publish, whom to promote or hire, the success of grant applications, and even salary bonuses.<ref name="Rossner 2007"/></blockquote>

More targeted research has begun to provide firm evidence of how deeply the impact factor is embedded within formal and informal research assessment processes. A review in 2019 studied how often the JIF featured in documents related to the review, promotion, and tenure of scientists in US and Canadian universities. It concluded that 40% of universities focused on academic research specifically mentioned the JIF as part of such review, promotion, and tenure processes.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=McKiernan EC, Schimanski LA, Muñoz Nieves C, Matthias L, Niles MT, Alperin JP |date=July 2019 |title=Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations |journal=eLife |volume=8 |doi=10.7554/eLife.47338 |pmc=6668985 |pmid=31364991 |doi-access=free }}</ref> And a 2017 study of how researchers in the life sciences behave concluded that "everyday decision-making practices as highly governed by pressures to publish in high-impact journals". The deeply embedded nature of such indicators not only effect research assessment, but the more fundamental issue of what research is actually undertaken: "Given the current ways of evaluation and valuing research, risky, lengthy, and unorthodox project rarely take center stage."<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Müller |first1=Ruth |last2=de Rijcke |first2=Sarah |date=2017-07-01 |title=Thinking with indicators. Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences |url=https://academic.oup.com/rev/article/26/3/157/3933574 |journal=Research Evaluation |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=157–168 |doi=10.1093/reseval/rvx023 |issn=0958-2029}}</ref>

==Criticism==
Numerous critiques have been made regarding the use of impact factors, both in terms of its statistical validity and also of its implications for how science is carried out and assessed.<ref name="nih2016" /><ref name="Time to">{{cite journal |vauthors= |title=Time to remodel the journal impact factor |journal=Nature |volume=535 |issue=7613 |pages=466 |date=July 2016 |pmid=27466089 |doi=10.1038/535466a |doi-access=free |bibcode=2016Natur.535..466.}}</ref><ref name="EASE">{{cite web |url=http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/impact-factor-statement |title=EASE Statement on Inappropriate Use of Impact Factors |website=European Association of Science Editors |access-date=2012-07-23 |archive-date=14 August 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120814150306/http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/impact-factor-statement |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="Beat it, impact factor! Publishing">{{cite journal |vauthors=Callaway E |title=Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric |journal=Nature |volume=535 |issue=7611 |pages=210–1 |date=July 2016 |pmid=27411614 |doi=10.1038/nature.2016.20224 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2016Natur.535..210C}}</ref><ref name="Brembs_2013" /> A 2007 study noted that the most fundamental flaw is that impact factors present the [[arithmetic mean|mean]] of data that are not [[normal distribution|normally distributed]], and suggested that it would be more appropriate to present the [[median]] of these data.<ref name="Rossner 2007"/> There is also a more general debate on the validity of the impact factor as a measure of journal importance and the effect of policies that editors may adopt to boost their impact factor (perhaps to the detriment of readers and writers). Other criticism focuses on the effect of the impact factor on behavior of scholars, editors and other stakeholders.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=van Wesel M |title=Evaluation by Citation: Trends in Publication Behavior, Evaluation Criteria, and the Strive for High Impact Publications |journal=Science and Engineering Ethics |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=199–225 |date=February 2016 |pmid=25742806 |pmc=4750571 |doi=10.1007/s11948-015-9638-0}}</ref> Criticism of impact factors also extends to its impact on researcher behavior. While the emphasis on high-impact journals may lead to strategic publishing practices that prioritize journal prestige over the quality and relevance of research, it's important to acknowledge the "privilege paradox".<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Souza-Neto |first=Valério |date=2024-11-12 |title=Ignoring journal metrics on CVs is an act of privilege |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03705-7 |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=635 |issue=8038 |pages=290 |doi=10.1038/d41586-024-03705-7|pmid=39533078 |bibcode=2024Natur.635..290S }}</ref> Younger researchers, particularly those from under-represented regions, often lack the established reputation or networks to secure recognition outside of these metrics.<ref name=":3" /> This can lead to a narrow focus on publishing in top-tier journals, potentially compromising the diversity of research topics and methodologies. Further criticisms argue that emphasis on impact factor results from the negative influence of [[neoliberal]] politics on academia. Some of these arguments demand not just replacement of the impact factor with more sophisticated metrics but also discussion on the social value of research assessment and the growing precariousness of scientific careers in higher education.<ref>{{cite web |vauthors=Kansa E |title=It's the Neoliberalism, Stupid: Why instrumentalist arguments for Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science are not enough |url=http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/01/27/its-the-neoliberalism-stupid-kansa/ |website=LSE Impact Blog |access-date=16 July 2018 |date=27 January 2014}}</ref><ref name=Cabello>{{cite journal |journal=International Journal of Communication |title=The Index and the Moon. Mortgaging Scientific Evaluation |vauthors=Cabello F, Rascón MT |year=2015 |volume=9 |pages=1880–1887 |url=http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3629/1407}}</ref>

===Inapplicability of impact factor to individuals and between-discipline differences===
It has been stated that impact factors in particular and citation analysis in general are affected by field-dependent factors<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Bornmann L, Daniel HD |year=2008 |title=What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior |journal=Journal of Documentation |volume=64 |issue=1 |pages=45–80 |doi=10.1108/00220410810844150 |hdl=11858/00-001M-0000-0013-7A94-3|s2cid=17260826 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> which invalidate comparisons not only across disciplines but even within different fields of research of one discipline.<ref>{{cite SSRN |vauthors=Anauati MV, Galiani S, Gálvez RM |title= Quantifying the Life Cycle of Scholarly Articles Across Fields of Economic Research |date=11 November 2014 |ssrn=2523078}}</ref> The percentage of total citations occurring in the first two years after publication also varies highly among disciplines from 1–3% in the mathematical and physical sciences to 5–8% in the biological sciences.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=van Nierop E |title=Why Do Statistics Journals Have Low Impact Factors? |journal=Statistica Neerlandica |volume=63 |issue=1 |year=2009 |pages=52–62 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9574.2008.00408.x|s2cid=247704905 }}</ref> Thus impact factors cannot be used to compare journals across disciplines.

Impact factors are sometimes used to evaluate not only the journals but the papers therein, thereby devaluing papers in certain subjects.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Bohannon J |title=Hate journal impact factors? New study gives you one more reason |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |year=2016 |doi=10.1126/science.aag0643}}</ref> In 2004, the [[Higher Education Funding Council for England]] was urged by the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] [[Science and Technology Select Committee]] to remind [[Research Assessment Exercise]] panels that they are obliged to assess the quality of the content of individual articles, not the reputation of the journal in which they are published.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39912.htm |title=House of Commons – Science and Technology – Tenth Report |access-date=2008-07-28 |date=2004-07-07}}</ref> Other studies have repeatedly stated that impact factor is a metric for journals and should not be used to assess individual researchers or institutions.<ref name=Seglen-BMJ>{{cite journal |vauthors=Seglen PO |title=Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research |journal=BMJ |volume=314 |issue=7079 |pages=498–502 |date=February 1997 |pmid=9056804 |pmc=2126010 |doi=10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=EASE Statement on Inappropriate Use of Impact Factors |website=European Association of Science Editors |date=November 2007 |access-date=2013-04-13 |url=http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/impact-factor-statement |archive-date=14 August 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120814150306/http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/impact-factor-statement |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite report |vauthors=Wilsdon J, Allen L, Belfiore E, Campbell P, Curry S, Hill S, Jones R, Kain R, Kerridge S, Thelwall M, Tinkler J |display-authors=6 |date=July 2015 |title=The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management |doi=10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363}}</ref>

===Questionable editorial policies that affect the impact factor===
{{See also |Conflicts of interest in academic publishing#COIs of journals}}

Because impact factor is commonly accepted as a proxy for research quality, some journals adopt editorial policies and practices, some acceptable and some of dubious purpose, to increase its impact factor.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Number That's Devouring Science |newspaper=The Chronicle of Higher Education |vauthors=Monastersky R |date=14 October 2005 |url=http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i08/08a01201.htm}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Nefarious Numbers |vauthors=Arnold DN, Fowler KK |author-link1=Douglas N. Arnold |year=2011 |journal=[[Notices of the American Mathematical Society]] |volume=58 |issue=3 |pages=434–437 |arxiv=1010.0278 |bibcode=2010arXiv1010.0278A}}</ref> For example, journals may publish a larger percentage of [[review article]]s which generally are cited more than research reports.<ref name=garfield>{{cite web |title=The Clarivate Impact Factor |website=Clarivate |date=20 June 1994 |url=https://clarivate.com/essays/impact-factor/}}</ref> Research undertaken in 2020 on dentistry journals concluded that the publication of "systematic reviews have significant effect on the Journal Impact Factor ... while papers publishing clinical trials bear no influence on this factor. Greater yearly average of published papers ... means a higher impact factor."<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Valderrama P, Escabias M, Valderrama MJ, Jiménez-Contreras E, Baca P |title=Influential variables in the Journal Impact Factor of Dentistry journals |journal=Heliyon |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=e03575 |date=March 2020 |pmid=32211547 |pmc=7082530 |doi=10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03575|doi-access=free |bibcode=2020Heliy...603575V }}</ref>

Journals may also attempt to limit the number of "citable items"—i.e., the denominator of the impact factor equation—either by declining to publish articles that are unlikely to be cited (such as case reports in medical journals) or by altering articles (e.g., by not allowing an [[abstract (summary)|abstract]] or [[bibliography]] in hopes that Journal Citation Reports will not deem it a "citable item"). As a result of negotiations over whether items are "citable", impact factor variations of more than 300% have been observed.<ref name=PLoS-editorial>{{cite journal|title=The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature |journal=PLOS Medicine |volume=3 |issue=6 |pages=e291 |date=June 2006 |pmid=16749869 |pmc=1475651 |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291 |author=((The PLoS Medicine Editors))<!-- Italics in accept-this-as-written markup produce corrupt metadata --> |doi-access=free }}</ref> Items considered to be uncitable—and thus are not incorporated in impact factor calculations—can, if cited, still enter into the numerator part of the equation despite the ease with which such citations could be excluded. This effect is hard to evaluate, for the distinction between editorial comment and short original articles is not always obvious. For example, letters to the editor may be part of either class.

Another less insidious tactic journals employ is to publish a large portion of its papers, or at least the papers expected to be highly cited, early in the calendar year. This gives those papers more time to gather citations. Several methods, not necessarily with nefarious intent, exist for a journal to cite articles in the same journal which will increase the journal's impact factor.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Agrawal AA |title=Corruption of journal Impact Factors |journal=Trends in Ecology & Evolution |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=157 |date=April 2005 |pmid=16701362 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.002 |bibcode=2005TEcoE..20..157A |url=http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/research/papers/other%20pdfs/agrawal%202005%20tree%20corruption.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100619084714/http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/research/papers/other%20pdfs/agrawal%202005%20tree%20corruption.pdf |archive-date=2010-06-19}}</ref><ref name="pmid12139549">{{cite journal |vauthors=Fassoulaki A, Papilas K, Paraskeva A, Patris K |title=Impact factor bias and proposed adjustments for its determination |journal=Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica |volume=46 |issue=7 |pages=902–5 |date=August 2002 |pmid=12139549 |doi=10.1034/j.1399-6576.2002.460723.x |s2cid=20805963}}</ref>

Beyond editorial policies that may skew the impact factor, journals can take overt steps to [[game the system]]. For example, in 2007, the specialist journal ''[[Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica]]'', with an impact factor of 0.66, published an editorial that cited all its articles from 2005 to 2006 in a protest against the "absurd scientific situation in some countries" related to use of the impact factor.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Schutte HK, Svec JG |title=Reaction of Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica on the current trend of impact factor measures |journal=Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica |volume=59 |issue=6 |pages=281–5 |year=2007 |pmid=17965570 |doi=10.1159/000108334 |s2cid=7595296}}</ref> The large number of citations meant that the impact factor for that journal increased to 1.44. As a result of the increase, the journal was not included in the 2008 and 2009 ''Journal Citation Reports''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://admin-apps.isiknowledge.com/JCR/static_html/notices/notices.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100515192042/http://admin-apps.isiknowledge.com/JCR/static_html/notices/notices.htm |archive-date=2010-05-15 |url-status=dead |title=Journal Citation Reports – Notices |access-date=2009-09-24}}</ref>

[[Coercive citation]] is a practice in which an editor forces an author to add extraneous citations to an article before the journal will agree to publish it, in order to inflate the journal's impact factor.<ref>{{Cite journal |vauthors=McLeod S |date=2020-09-25 |title=Should authors cite sources suggested by peer reviewers? Six antidotes for handling potentially coercive reviewer citation suggestions |journal=Learned Publishing |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=282–286 |doi=10.1002/leap.1335 |doi-access=free |s2cid=225004022 |issn=0953-1513}}</ref> A survey published in 2012 indicates that coercive citation has been experienced by one in five researchers working in economics, sociology, psychology, and multiple business disciplines, and it is more common in business and in journals with a lower impact factor.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Wilhite AW, Fong EA |title=Scientific publications. Coercive citation in academic publishing |journal=Science |volume=335 |issue=6068 |pages=542–3 |date=February 2012 |pmid=22301307 |doi=10.1126/science.1212540 |s2cid=30073305 |bibcode=2012Sci...335..542W}}</ref> Editors of leading business journals banded together to disavow the practice.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Lynch JG |title=Business journals combat coercive citation |journal=Science |volume=335 |issue=6073 |pages=1169.1–1169 |date=March 2012 |pmid=22403371 |doi=10.1126/science.335.6073.1169-a |bibcode=2012Sci...335.1169L}}</ref> However, cases of coercive citation have occasionally been reported for other disciplines.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Dyer C |title=Widow can be inseminated with husband's sperm |journal=BMJ |volume=314 |issue=7079 |pages=461 |date=February 1997 |pmid=9056791 |pmc=2125988 |doi=10.1136/bmj.314.7079.461d}}</ref>

===Assumed correlation between impact factor and quality===
The journal impact factor was originally designed by Eugene Garfield as a metric to help librarians make decisions about which journals were worth indexing, as the JIF aggregates the number of citations to articles published in each journal. Since then, the JIF has become associated as a mark of journal "quality", and gained widespread use for evaluation of research and researchers instead, even at the institutional level. It thus has significant impact on steering research practices and behaviours.<ref name="Lariviere 2018">{{cite arXiv |title=The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects |eprint=1801.08992 |vauthors=Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Lariviere V, Gingras Y, Carr L, Brody T, Harnad S |year=2018 |class=cs.DL}}</ref><ref name="Curry 2018">{{cite journal |vauthors=Curry S |title=Let's move beyond the rhetoric: it's time to change how we judge research |journal=Nature |volume=554 |issue=7691 |page=147 |date=February 2018 |pmid=29420505 |doi=10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w |bibcode=2018Natur.554..147C}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Al-Hoorie A, Vitta JP |year=2019 |title=The seven sins of L2 research: A review of 30 journals' statistical quality and their CiteScore, SJR, SNIP, JCR Impact Factors |journal=Language Teaching Research |volume=23 |issue=6 |pages=727–744 |doi=10.1177/1362168818767191 |s2cid=149857357}}</ref>

By 2010, national and international research funding institutions were already starting to point out that numerical indicators such as the JIF should not be considered as a measure of quality.{{NoteTag |{{cite press release |url=https://www.dfg.de/en/service/press/press_releases/2010/pressemitteilung_nr_07/ |title='Quality Not Quantity' – DFG Adopts Rules to Counter the Flood of Publications in Research |id=DFG Press Release No. 7 |publisher=Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ([[German Research Foundation]]) |date=2010}}}} In fact, research was indicating that the JIF is a highly manipulated metric,<ref name="Falagas 2008">{{cite journal |vauthors=Falagas ME, Alexiou VG |title=The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation |journal=Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis |volume=56 |issue=4 |pages=223–6 |year=2008 |pmid=18661263 |doi=10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5 |s2cid=7482376}}</ref><ref name="Tort 2012">{{cite journal |vauthors=Tort AB, Targino ZH, Amaral OB |title=Rising publication delays inflate journal impact factors |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=7 |issue=12 |page=e53374 |year=2012 |pmid=23300920 |pmc=3534064 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0053374 |bibcode=2012PLoSO...753374T |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Fong 2017">{{cite journal |vauthors=Fong EA, Wilhite AW |title=Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=12 |issue=12 |page=e0187394 |year=2017 |pmid=29211744 |pmc=5718422 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0187394 |bibcode=2017PLoSO..1287394F |doi-access=free}}</ref> and the justification for its continued widespread use beyond its original narrow purpose seems due to its simplicity (easily calculable and comparable number), rather than any actual relationship to research quality.<ref name="Adler 2008">{{cite journal |vauthors=Adler R, Ewing J, Taylor P |title=Citation Statistics: A Report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in Cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS) |journal=Statistical Science |date=2009 |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=1–14 |doi=10.1214/09-STS285 |url=https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf |arxiv=0910.3529 |jstor=20697661 |s2cid=219477 |issn=0883-4237}}</ref><ref name="Brembs 2018">{{cite journal |vauthors=Brembs B |title=Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability |journal=Frontiers in Human Neuroscience |volume=12 |page=37 |year=2018 |pmid=29515380 |pmc=5826185 |doi=10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Lariviere 2009">{{cite arXiv |title=The Impact Factor's Matthew Effect: A Natural Experiment in Bibliometrics |eprint=0908.3177 |vauthors=Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Lariviere V, Gingras Y, Carr L, Brody T, Harnad S |year=2009 |class=physics.soc-ph}}</ref>

Empirical evidence shows that the misuse of the JIF—and journal ranking metrics in general—has a number of negative consequences for the scholarly communication system. These include gaps between the reach of a journal and the quality of its individual papers<ref name="Brembs_2013">{{cite journal |last1=Brembs |first1=Björn |last2=Button |first2=Katherine |last3=Munafò |first3=Marcus |date=2013-06-24 |title=Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank |journal=[[Frontiers Media|Frontiers in Human Neuroscience]] |volume=7 |page=291 |arxiv=1301.3748 |bibcode=2013arXiv1301.3748B |doi=10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291 |issn=1662-5161 |pmc=3690355 |pmid=23805088 |doi-access=free}}</ref> and insufficient coverage of social sciences and humanities as well as research outputs from across Latin America, Africa, and South-East Asia.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Severin |first1=Anna |last2=Strinzel |first2=Michaela |last3=Egger |first3=Matthias |last4=Barros |first4=Tiago |last5=Sokolov |first5=Alexander |last6=Mouatt |first6=Julia Vilstrup |last7=Müller |first7=Stefan |date=2023-08-29 |editor-last=Dirnagl |editor-first=Ulrich |title=Relationship between journal impact factor and the thoroughness and helpfulness of peer reviews |journal=[[PLOS Biology]] |language=en |volume=21 |issue=8 |pages=e3002238 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002238 |issn=1544-9173 |eissn=1545-7885 |lccn=2003212293 |oclc=1039259630 |pmc=10464996 |pmid=37643173 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Additional drawbacks include the marginalization of research in [[vernacular language]]s and on locally relevant topics and inducement to unethical authorship and citation practices. More generally, the impact factors fosters a reputation economy, where scientific success is based on publishing in prestigious journals ahead of actual research qualities such as rigorous methods, replicability and social impact. Using journal prestige and the JIF to cultivate a competition regime in academia has been shown to have deleterious effects on research quality.<ref name="Vessuri 2014">{{cite journal |last1=Vessuri |first1=Hebe |last2=Guédon |first2=Jean-Claude |last3=Cetto |first3=Ana María |date=September 2014 |title=Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0011392113512839 |journal=[[Current Sociology]] |language=en |volume=62 |issue=5 |pages=647–665 |doi=10.1177/0011392113512839 |issn=0011-3921 |eissn=1461-7064 |s2cid=25166127 |via=[[Sage Publishing]]}}</ref>

A number of regional and international initiatives are now providing and suggesting alternative research assessment systems, including key documents such as the [[Leiden Manifesto]]{{NoteTag |{{cite web |url=http://www.leidenmanifesto.org/ |title=The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics |year=2015}}}} and the [[San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment]] (DORA). [[Plan S]] calls for a broader adoption and implementation of such initiatives alongside fundamental changes in the scholarly communication system.{{NoteTag |{{cite web |url=https://www.coalition-s.org/feedback/ |title=Plan S implementation guidelines |date=February 2019}}}} As appropriate measures of quality for authors and research, concepts of research excellence should be remodelled around transparent workflows and accessible research results.<ref name="Moore 2017">{{cite journal |title='Excellence R Us': University Research and the Fetishisation of Excellence |journal=Palgrave Communications |volume=3 |doi=10.1057/palcomms.2016.105 |year=2017 |vauthors=Moore S, Neylon C, Eve MP, O'Donnell DP, Pattinson D |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Owen 2012">{{cite journal |title=Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society |journal=Science and Public Policy |volume=39 |issue=6 |pages=751–760 |doi=10.1093/scipol/scs093 |year=2012 |vauthors=Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J}}</ref><ref name="Hicks 2015" />

JIFs are still regularly used to evaluate research in many countries, which is a problem since a number of issues remain around the opacity of the metric and the fact that it is often negotiated by publishers.<ref name="Guédon 2008">{{cite journal |title=Open Access and the Divide between 'Mainstream" and "peripheral |journal=Como Gerir e Qualificar Revistas Científicas |pages=1–25}}</ref><ref name="Alperin 2018">{{cite journal |vauthors=Alperin JP, Muñoz Nieves C, Schimanski LA, Fischman GE, Niles MT, McKiernan EC |title=How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents? |journal=eLife |volume=8 |date=February 2019 |pmid=30747708 |pmc=6391063 |doi=10.7554/eLife.42254 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Rossner 2007">{{cite journal |vauthors=Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E |title=Show me the data |journal=The Journal of Cell Biology |volume=179 |issue=6 |pages=1091–2 |date=December 2007 |pmid=18086910 |pmc=2140038 |doi=10.1083/jcb.200711140}}</ref>

===Negotiated values===
Results of an impact factor can change dramatically depending on which items are considered as "citable" and therefore included in the denominator.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Adam D |title=The counting house |journal=Nature |volume=415 |issue=6873 |pages=726–9 |date=February 2002 |pmid=11845174 |doi=10.1038/415726a |s2cid=4407346|doi-access=free }}</ref> One notorious example of this occurred in 1988 when it was decided that meeting abstracts published in ''FASEB Journal'' would no longer be included in the denominator. The journal's impact factor jumped from 0.24 in 1988 to 18.3 in 1989.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Baylis M, Gravenor M, Kao R |title=Sprucing up one's impact factor |journal=Nature |volume=401 |issue=6751 |pages=322 |date=September 1999 |pmid=10517624 |doi=10.1038/43768-c1 |s2cid=4356889|doi-access=free }}</ref> Publishers routinely discuss with Clarivate how to improve the "accuracy" of their journals' impact factor and therefore get higher scores.<ref name=PLoS-editorial /><ref name="Brembs_2013" />

Such discussions routinely produce "negotiated values" which result in dramatic changes in the observed scores for dozens of journals, sometimes after unrelated events like the purchase by one of the larger publishers.<ref>{{cite web |access-date=2020-07-14 |title=Just how widespread are impact factor negotiations? |url=http://bjoern.brembs.net/2016/01/just-how-widespread-are-impact-factor-negotiations/ |date=2016-01-08 |vauthors=Brembs B }}</ref>

===Distribution skewness===
[[File:Journal impact factor Nature Plos One.png |thumb |440x440px |Journal impact factors are influenced heavily by a small number of highly cited papers. Most papers published in 2013–14 received many fewer citations than indicated by the impact factor. Two journals ([[Nature (journal)|''Nature'']] [blue] and ''[[PLOS ONE]]'' [orange]) are shown to represent a highly cited and less cited journal, respectively. The high citation impact of ''Nature'' is derived from relatively few highly cited papers. Modified after Callaway 2016.<ref name="Callaway_2016">{{cite journal |vauthors=Callaway E |title=Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric |journal=Nature |volume=535 |issue=7611 |pages=210–1 |date=July 2016 |pmid=27411614 |doi=10.1038/nature.2016.20224 |bibcode=2016Natur.535..210C |doi-access=free}}</ref>]]

Because citation counts have highly [[skewed distribution]]s,<ref name="Beat it, impact factor! Publishing"/> the mean number of citations is potentially misleading if used to gauge the typical impact of articles in the journal rather than the overall impact of the journal itself.<ref>{{cite news |title=Citation Statistics |author=Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research |publisher=International Mathematical Union |date=12 June 2008 |url=http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf}}</ref> For example, about 90% of ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]''{{'}}s 2004 impact factor was based on only a quarter of its publications. Thus the actual number of citations for a single article in the journal is in most cases much lower than the mean number of citations across articles.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors= |title=Not-so-deep impact |journal=Nature |volume=435 |issue=7045 |pages=1003–4 |date=June 2005 |pmid=15973362 |doi=10.1038/4351003b |doi-access=free}}</ref> Furthermore, the strength of the relationship between impact factors of journals and the citation rates of the papers therein has been steadily decreasing since articles began to be available digitally.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1002/asi.22731 |title=The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age |year=2012 |vauthors=Lozano GA, Larivière V, Gingras Y |journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology |volume=63 |issue=11 |pages=2140–2145 |arxiv=1205.4328 |bibcode=2012arXiv1205.4328L |s2cid=492922}}</ref>

The effect of outliers can be seen in the case of the article "A short history of SHELX", which included this sentence: "This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of the open-source SHELX programs (and the Bruker AXS version SHELXTL) are employed in the course of a crystal-structure determination". This article received more than 6,600 citations. As a consequence, the impact factor of the journal ''[[Acta Crystallographica]] Section&nbsp;A'' rose from 2.051 in 2008 to 49.926 in 2009, more than ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (at 31.434) and ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' (at 28.103).<ref>{{cite news |date=21 June 2010 |title=New impact factors yield surprises |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/new-impact-factors-yield-surprises-43246 |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date=23 October 2024 |work=The Scientist |vauthors=Grant B}}</ref> The second-most cited article in ''Acta Crystallographica Section&nbsp;A'' in 2008 had only 28 citations.<ref>{{cite web |date=17 June 2010 |title=What does it mean to be #2 in Impact? |url=http://community.thomsonreuters.com/t5/Citation-Impact-Center/What-does-it-mean-to-be-2-in-Impact/ba-p/11386 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171012192240/http://community.thomsonreuters.com/t5/Citation-Impact-Center/What-does-it-mean-to-be-2-in-Impact/ba-p/11386 |archive-date=12 October 2017 |access-date=2018-07-16 |vauthors=McVeigh M}}</ref>

Critics of the JIF state that use of the [[arithmetic mean]] in its calculation is problematic because the pattern of citation distribution is skewed<ref name="Lariviere 2016">{{cite bioRxiv |title=A Simple Proposal for the Publication of Journal Citation Distributions |biorxiv=10.1101/062109 |year=2016 |vauthors=Larivière V, Kiermer V, MacCallum CJ, McNutt M, Patterson M, Pulverer B, Swaminathan S, Taylor S, Curry S |display-authors=6}}</ref> and citation distributions metrics have been proposed as an alternative to impact factors.<ref>{{cite web |vauthors=Kiermer V |title=Measuring Up: Impact Factors Do Not Reflect Article Citation Rates |publisher=[[PLOS]] |year=2016 |url=http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2016/07/impact-factors-do-not-reflect-citation-rates/}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46495/title/Ditching-Impact-Factors-for-Deeper-Data/ |title=Ditching Impact Factors for Deeper Data |work=The Scientist |access-date=2016-07-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Corneliussen S |title=Bad summer for the journal impact factor |journal=[[Physics Today]] |date=2016 |issue=8 |page=22472 |doi=10.1063/PT.5.8183|bibcode=2016PhT..2016h2472C }}</ref>

However, there have also been pleas to take a more nuanced approach to judging the distribution skewness of the impact factor. Ludo Waltman and Vincent Antonio Traag, in their 2021 paper, ran numerous simulations and concluded that "statistical objections against the use of the IF at the level of individual articles are not convincing", and that "the IF may be a more accurate indicator of the value of an article than the number of citations of the article".<ref name="Waltman 366"/>

===Reproducibility===
While the underlying mathematical model is publicly known, the dataset which is used to calculate the JIF is not publicly available. This prompted criticism: "Just as scientists would not accept the findings in a scientific paper without seeing the primary data, so should they not rely on Thomson Scientific's impact factor, which is based on hidden data".<ref name="Rossner 2007"/> However, a 2019 article demonstrated that "with access to the data and careful cleaning, the JIF can be reproduced", although this required much labour to achieve.<ref name=":2">{{Citation |vauthors=Larivière V, Sugimoto CR |title=The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects |date=2019 |work=Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators |series=Springer Handbooks |pages=3–24 |veditors=Glänzel W, Moed HF, Schmoch U, Thelwall M |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1 |arxiv=1801.08992 |isbn=978-3-030-02510-6 |s2cid=3677889}}</ref> A 2020 research paper went further. It indicated that by querying open access or partly open-access databases, like Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Scopus, it is possible to calculate approximate impact factors without the need to purchase Web of Science / JCR.<ref>{{Cite journal |vauthors=Templ M |date=2020-06-19 |title=Modeling and Prediction of the Impact Factor of Journals Using Open-Access Databases: With an Application to the Austrian Journal of Statistics |url=https://www.ajs.or.at/index.php/ajs/article/view/1186 |journal=Austrian Journal of Statistics |volume=49 |issue=5 |pages=35–58 |doi=10.17713/ajs.v49i5.1186 |s2cid=225704065 |issn=1026-597X|doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Broader negative impact on science===
Just as the impact factor has attracted criticism for various immediate problems associated with its application, so has there also been criticism that its application undermines the broader process of science. Research has indicated that bibliometrics figures, particularly the impact factor, decrease the quality of peer review an article receives,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Stephan |first1=Paula |last2=Veugelers |first2=Reinhilde |last3=Wang |first3=Jian |date=April 2017 |title=Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics |journal=Nature |volume=544 |issue=7651 |pages=411–412 |doi=10.1038/544411a |pmid=28447652 |bibcode=2017Natur.544..411S |s2cid=5197138 |issn=0028-0836|doi-access=free }}</ref> cause a reluctance to share data,<ref name=":0" /> decrease the quality of articles,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Informing Research Choices: Indicators and Judgment |url=https://cca-reports.ca/reports/informing-research-choices-indicators-and-judgment/ |access-date=2021-08-16}}</ref> and a reduce the scope of publishable research. "For many researchers the only research questions and projects that appear viable are those that can meet the demand of scoring well in terms of metric performance indicators – and chiefly the journal impact factor."<ref name=":0" /> Furthermore, the process of publication and science is slowed down – authors automatically try and publish with the journals with the highest impact factor – "as editors and reviewers are tasked with reviewing papers that are not submitted to the most appropriate venues".<ref name=":2" />

==Institutional responses to criticism of the impact factor==
Given the growing criticism and its widespread usage as a means of research assessment, organisations and institutions have begun to take steps to move away from the journal impact factor. In November 2007 the [[European Association of Science Editors]] (EASE) issued an official statement recommending "that journal impact factors are used only—and cautiously—for measuring and comparing the influence of entire journals, but not for the assessment of single papers, and certainly not for the assessment of researchers or research programmes".<ref name="EASE"/>

In July 2008, the [[International Council for Science]] Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science issued a "statement on publication practices and indices and the role of [[peer review]] in research assessment", suggesting many possible solutions—e.g., considering a limit number of publications per year to be taken into consideration for each scientist, or even penalising scientists for an excessive number of publications per year—e.g., more than 20.<ref name="test">{{cite web |url=http://www.icsu.org/publications/cfrs-statements/publication-practices-peer-review/statement-publication-practices-and-indices-and-the-role-of-peer-review-in-research-assessment-july-2008 |title=International Council for Science statement |publisher=Icsu.org |date=2014-05-02 |access-date=2014-05-18 |archive-date=26 April 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170426023939/http://www.icsu.org/publications/cfrs-statements/publication-practices-peer-review/statement-publication-practices-and-indices-and-the-role-of-peer-review-in-research-assessment-july-2008 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In February 2010, the [[Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft]] (German Research Foundation) published new guidelines to reduce the number of publications that could be submitted when applying for funding: "The focus has not been on what research someone has done but rather how many papers have been published and where." They noted that for decisions concerning "performance-based funding allocations, postdoctoral qualifications, appointments, or reviewing funding proposals, [where] increasing importance has been given to numerical indicators such as the [[h-index]] and the impact factor".<ref>{{cite web |date=23 February 2010 |title=Quality not Quantity: DFG Adopts Rules to Counter the Flood of Publications in Research |url=https://www.dfg.de/en/service/press/press_releases/2010/pressemitteilung_nr_07/index.html |publisher=Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft |access-date=2018-07-16}}</ref> The UK's [[Research Assessment Exercise]] for 2014 also banned the journal impact factor<ref>{{Cite news |date=2013-02-08 |title=Departmental H-Index is a more transparent, fair and cost-effective method for distributing funding to universities. |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/02/08/impact-factors-and-an-alternative-to-ref-2014/ |access-date=2021-08-14 |website=Impact of Social Sciences}}</ref> although evidence suggested that this ban was often ignored.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2012-11-30 |title=Business as usual in judging the worth of a researcher? |url=http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2012/nov/30/1 |access-date=2021-08-14 |website=The Guardian}}</ref>

In response to growing concerns over the inappropriate use of journal impact factors in evaluating scientific outputs and scientists themselves, the [[American society for cell biology|American Society for Cell Biology]] together with a group of editors and publishers of scholarly journals created the [[San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment]] (DORA). Released in May 2013, DORA has garnered support from thousands of individuals and hundreds of institutions,<ref name=Cabello/> including in March 2015 the League of European Research Universities (a consortium of 21 of the most renowned research universities in Europe),<ref>{{cite web |date=16 March 2015 |title=Not everything that can be counted counts … |publisher=League of European Research Universities |url=http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/news/not-everything-that-can-be-counted-counts- |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201035305/http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/news/not-everything-that-can-be-counted-counts- |archive-date=2017-12-01}}</ref> who have endorsed the document on the DORA website.

Publishers, even those with high impact factors, also recognised the flaws.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Callaway |first=Ewen |date=July 2016 |title=Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric |doi-access=free |journal=Nature |volume=535 |issue=7611 |pages=210–211 |doi=10.1038/nature.2016.20224 |pmid=27411614 |bibcode=2016Natur.535..210C |s2cid=4452614 |issn=0028-0836}}</ref> ''Nature'' magazine criticised the over-reliance on JIF, pointing not just to its statistical flaws but to negative effects on science: "The resulting pressures and disappointments are nothing but demoralizing, and in badly run labs can encourage sloppy research that, for example, fails to test assumptions thoroughly or to take all the data into account before submitting big claims."<ref name="Time to"/> Various publishers now use a mixture of metrics on their website; the PLOS series of journals does not display the impact factor.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Journal Information |url=https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information |access-date=2021-08-14 |website=PLOS ONE}}</ref> Microsoft Academic took a similar view, stating that h-index, EI/SCI and journal impact factors are not shown because "the research literature has provided abundant evidence that these metrics are at best a rough approximation of research impact and scholarly influence."<ref>{{Cite web |title=FAQ |url=https://academic.microsoft.com/faq |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170105184616/https://academic.microsoft.com/FAQ |archive-date=5 January 2017 |url-status=dead |access-date=2020-12-15 |website=Microsoft Academic }}</ref>

In 2021, [[Utrecht University]] promised to abandon all quantitative bibliometrics, including the impact factor. The university stated that "it has become a very sick model that goes beyond what is really relevant for science and putting science forward".<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Woolston C |title=Impact factor abandoned by Dutch university in hiring and promotion decisions |journal=Nature |volume=595 |issue=7867 |pages=462 |date=July 2021 |pmid=34172959 |doi=10.1038/d41586-021-01759-5 |bibcode=2021Natur.595..462W|s2cid=235647170 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Recognition and rewards {{!}} Universiteit Utrecht |url=https://www.uu.nl/en/research/open-science/tracks/recognition-and-rewards |access-date=2021-07-19 |website=www.uu.nl}}</ref> This followed a 2018 decision by the main Dutch funding body for research, [[Dutch Research Council|NWO]], to remove all references to journal impact factors and the h-index in all call texts and application forms.<ref>{{Cite web |title=DORA {{!}} NWO |url=https://www.nwo.nl/en/dora |access-date=2021-07-21 |website=www.nwo.nl}}</ref> Utrecht's decision met with some resistance. An open letter signed by over 150 Dutch academics argued that, while imperfect, the JIF is still useful, and that omitting it "will lead to randomness and a compromising of scientific quality".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Scientists at odds on Utrecht University reforms to hiring and promotion criteria |url=https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/scientists-argue-over-use-of-impact-factors-for-evaluating-research |access-date=2021-08-14 |website=www.natureindex.com|date=9 August 2021 }}</ref>

==Related indices==
Some related metrics, also calculated and published by the same organization, include:

* ''Cited half-life'': the median age of the articles that were cited in ''Journal Citation Reports'' each year. For example, if a journal's half-life in 2005 is 5, that means the citations from 2001 to 2005 are half of all the citations from that journal in 2005, and the other half of the citations precede 2001.<ref>{{cite web |title=Impact Factor, Immediacy Index, Cited Half-life |url=http://www.bib.slu.se/kurser/sss/skriva/impactfactor/eimpactfactor.html |publisher=Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences |access-date=30 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080523091640/http://www.bib.slu.se/kurser/sss/skriva/impactfactor/eimpactfactor.html |archive-date=23 May 2008}}</ref>
* ''Aggregate impact factor'' for a subject category: it is calculated taking into account the number of citations to all journals in the subject category and the number of articles from all the journals in the subject category.
* {{anchor |Immediacy index}}''Immediacy index'': the number of citations the articles in a journal receive in a given year divided by the number of articles published.
* {{anchor |Journal citation indicator}}'' Journal citation indicator'' (''JCI''): a JIF that adjusts for scientific field; it is similar to [[Source Normalized Impact per Paper]], calculated based on the [[Scopus]] database.<ref name="Science2021">{{cite web |title=Journal impact factor gets a sibling that adjusts for scientific field |website=Science &#124; AAAS |date=2021-06-30 |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/journal-impact-factor-gets-sibling-adjusts-scientific-field |first1=Cathleen |last1=O’Grady |access-date=2021-06-30}}</ref> JCI is available for all journals in the [[Web of Science Core Collection]] (WoS CC) -- including the AHCI, ESCI, BCI, CPCI—while JIF is only available for the SCIE and SSCI; however, starting in June 2023, JIF will also be issued for all journals in the WoS CC.<ref name="Clarivate 2022">{{cite web | title=Web of Science Journal Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria | website=Clarivate | date=2022-07-26 | url=https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/web-of-science/core-collection/editorial-selection-process/editorial-selection-process/ | access-date=2023-01-18}}</ref>
* ''JIF quartile ranking'': a rank based on the four [[quartile]]s within a given subject or topic category.<ref>{{cite web |title=Scientific & Academic Research |url=https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Journal-Citation-Reports-Quartile-rankings-and-other-metrics |website=Support |publisher=Clarivate |access-date=2023-03-25}}</ref>
* ''JIF percentile ranking'': a [[percentile rank]] computed for a particular subject category.<ref name="jcr.help.clarivate.com">{{cite web | title=Journal Impact Factor Percentile | website=jcr.help.clarivate.com | url=https://jcr.help.clarivate.com/Content/glossary-journal-impact-factor-percentile.htm | access-date=2023-05-24}}</ref>
A given journal may attain a different quartile or percentile in different categories.

As with the impact factor, there are some nuances to this: for example, Clarivate excludes certain article types (such as news items, correspondence, and errata) from the denominator.<ref name=Elsevier>{{cite web |title=Bibliometrics (journal measures) |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |url=http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editorshome.editors/biblio#immediacy |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120818141048/http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editorshome.editors/biblio#immediacy |archive-date=2012-08-18 |quote=A measure of the speed at which content in a particular journal is picked up and referred to. |access-date=2012-07-09}}</ref><ref name=thomson>{{cite web |title=Glossary of Thomson Scientific Terminology |publisher=[[Thomson Reuters]] |url=http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/support/patents/patinf/terms/#I |access-date=2012-07-09 |archive-date=20 April 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170420143837/http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/support/patents/patinf/terms/#I |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name=JCR-ii>{{cite web |title=Journal Citation Reports Contents – Immediacy Index |publisher=[[Clarivate Analytics]] |url=http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/help/h_immedindex.htm |format=(online) |quote=The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. The aggregate Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a subject category are cited. |access-date=2012-07-09}}</ref><ref name="McVeighMann2009">{{cite journal |vauthors=McVeigh ME, Mann SJ |title=The journal impact factor denominator: defining citable (counted) items |journal=JAMA |volume=302 |issue=10 |pages=1107–9 |date=September 2009 |pmid=19738096 |doi=10.1001/jama.2009.1301 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Other measures of scientific impact===
{{main |Citation metrics}}
{{Further |Scientometrics}}

Additional [[journal-level metrics]] are available from other organizations. For example, ''[[CiteScore]]'' is a metric for serial titles in [[Scopus]] launched in December 2016 by [[Elsevier]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/features/metrics |title=Metrics – Features – Scopus – Solutions |website=www.elsevier.com |access-date=2016-12-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Van Noorden R |title=Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival |journal=Nature |volume=540 |issue=7633 |pages=325–326 |date=December 2016 |pmid=27974784 |doi=10.1038/nature.2016.21131 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2016Natur.540..325V}}</ref> While these metrics apply only to journals, there are also [[author-level metrics]], such as the [[h-index]], that apply to individual researchers. In addition, [[article-level metrics]] measure impact at an article level instead of journal level.

Other more general alternative metrics, or "[[altmetrics]]", that include article views, downloads, or mentions in [[social media]], offer a different perspective on research impact, concentrating more on immediate social impact in and outside academia.<ref name="Hicks 2015">{{cite journal |vauthors=Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de Rijcke S, Rafols I |title=Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics |journal=Nature |volume=520 |issue=7548 |pages=429–31 |date=April 2015 |pmid=25903611 |doi=10.1038/520429a |doi-access=free |bibcode=2015Natur.520..429H|hdl=10261/132304 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Priem 2010">{{cite web |vauthors=Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, Neylon C |title=Altmetrics: A manifesto |date=26 October 2010 |url=http://altmetrics.org/manifesto}}</ref>

===Counterfeit impact factors===
Fake impact factors or bogus impact factors are produced by certain companies or individuals.<ref name=fake>{{cite journal |vauthors=Jalalian M |title=The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them |journal=Electronic Physician |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=1069–72 |year=2015 |pmid=26120416 |pmc=4477767 |doi=10.14661/2015.1069-1072}}</ref> According to an article published in the ''Electronic Physician'', these include Global Impact Factor, Citefactor, and Universal Impact Factor.<ref name="fake"/> [[Jeffrey Beall]] maintained a list of such misleading metrics.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/ |title=Misleading Metrics |work=Scholarly Open Access |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170111172311/https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/ |archive-date=2017-01-11}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://beallslist.net/misleading-metrics/ |title=Misleading Metrics – Beall's List}}</ref> Another deceitful practice is reporting "alternative impact factors", calculated as the average number of citations per article using [[citation indices]] other than JCR such as [[Google Scholar]] (e.g., "Google-based Journal Impact Factor") or [[Microsoft Academic]].<ref name="XiaSmith2018">{{cite journal |vauthors=Xia J, Smith MP |title=Alternative journal impact factors in open access publishing |journal=Learned Publishing |volume=31 |issue=4 |year=2018 |pages=403–411 |issn=0953-1513 |doi=10.1002/leap.1200 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

False impact factors are often used by [[predatory publishers]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://scholarlyoa.com/tag/fake-impact-factors/ |title=Scholarly Open-Access – Fake impact factors |vauthors=Beall J |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160321063637/https://scholarlyoa.com/tag/fake-impact-factors/ |archive-date=2016-03-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite report |title=Discussion document: Predatory Publishing |publisher=Committee on Publication Ethics |date=2019-11-01 |doi=10.24318/cope.2019.3.6 |page=|doi-access=free }}</ref> Consulting Journal Citation Reports' master journal list can confirm if a publication is [[journal indexing|indexed]] by the ''Journal Citation Reports''.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://mjl.clarivate.com/ |title=Master Journal List |website=Web of Science Group |publisher=Clarivate}}</ref> The use of fake impact metrics is considered a [[Red flag (idiom)|red flag]].<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Ebrahimzadeh MH |title=Validated Measures of Publication Quality: Guide for Novice Researchers to Choose an Appropriate Journal for Paper Submission |journal=The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=94–6 |date=April 2016 |pmid=27200383 |pmc=4852052}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal |Science}}

* [[author-level metrics#Author Impact Factor|Author impact factor]]
* [[Citation impact]]
* [[Goodhart's law]]
* [[Journalology]]

== Notes on alternatives ==
{{NoteFoot}}

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite journal |date=April 2006 |volume=15 |issue=4 |url=http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/impact.cfm |title=Does the 'Impact Factor' Impact Decisions on Where to Publish? |journal=APS News |publisher=[[American Physical Society]] |access-date=1 July 2010}}
* {{cite journal |vauthors=Garfield E |title=Journal impact factor: a brief review |journal=CMAJ |volume=161 |issue=8 |pages=979–80 |date=October 1999 |pmid=10551195 |pmc=1230709}}
* {{cite journal |vauthors=Gilbert N |title=UK science will be judged on impact |journal=Nature |volume=468 |issue=7322 |pages=357 |date=November 2010 |pmid=21085146 |doi=10.1038/468357a |bibcode=2010Natur.468..357G |doi-access=free}}
* {{cite journal |vauthors=Groesser SN |doi=10.1002/sres.2142 |title=Dynamics of Journal Impact Factors |year=2012 |journal=Systems Research and Behavioral Science |volume=29 |issue=6 |pages=624–644|url=http://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/211639/1/Groesser_Dynamics%20of%20impact%20factors.pdf }}
* {{cite arXiv |vauthors=Lariviere V, Sugimoto CR |eprint=1801.08992 |title=The Journal Impact Factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects |class=cs.DL |year=2018}}
* {{cite news |vauthors=Marcus A, Oransky I |title=What's Behind Big Science Frauds? |department=Opinion |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/opinion/whats-behind-big-science-frauds.html |work=The New York Times |date=22 May 2015}}
* {{cite web |url=https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?wos=false |title=Journal & Country Rank: Rankings by Scopus and Scimago Lab |work=Scopus and Scimago Lab |publisher=Scimago |access-date=23 October 2018}}
{{refend}}

{{Academic publishing|state=collapsed}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Impact factor}}
[[Category:Journal ranking]]
[[Category:Clarivate]]