Impact Factors and

In scientific publishing, one of the important things is what is known as the "impact factor" which is the the average number of citations a journal receives over a 2 year period. The impact factor is often used by librarians and researchers to determine which journals to purchase and where to publish. There are some problems with the impact factor, however.

The basic problem is that the impact factor does not consider the importance of the citing article. In other words, the cited paper is far more likely to be looked up by a reader if it is cited in five high profile journal articles (or five times in one high profile journal, etc.) than if it is cited twenty times in journals that are read infrequently. Yet, according to the impact factor rating, the latter case is more important.

At the University of Washington, Ben Althouse, Carl Bergstrom, and Jevin West have developed a new ranking system which they call eigenFACTOR. This system takes into account how widely read the citing journal is. I've gone to the website and compared the impact factor rankings to the eigenFACTOR rankings for the disciplines I know very well (evolution, ecology, microbiology, and infectious disease). eigenFACTOR seems to reflect how I, and I think my colleagues, rank journals far better than the impact factor.

Go over to eigenFACTOR and see what you think.

I would add that it does some other interesting things:

1) Theses, software, and books are including in the eigenFACTOR rankings.

2) It actually calculates, based on publisher prices, the 'value' of publishing in a given journal.

3) The phylogenetics sofware PAUP* is twelfth ranked evolutionary biology 'journal', which shouldn't be surprising. Nonetheless, it has to be embarrassing to have one's journal 'beaten' by a software program.

Again, it's worth the looksee.

Update: I got my statistics in my bioinformatics--it's eigenFACTOR, not vector...

More like this

It's that time again: the 2008 Journal Citation Reports are out from Thomson Reuters. It's started already, too, the e-mails to listservs and press releases. So I'm re-posting one of my posts from my old blog for those of you who might not have seen it. Like prices and hemlines, why do impact…
For those of you interested in the science publishing business, there is an interesting paper out about Impact Factors, where they do the math to try to explain why the IFs are apparentluy always rising from year to year, and to figure out the differences between disciplines. They remain agnostic…
The Wall Street Journal has an article -- unfortunately behind their subscription paywall -- about how scientific journals appear to be attempting to game the impact factor system which claims to offer an unbiased rating of a journal's influence. The article describes John B. West's experience in…
I just found out that the journal impact factors for 2005 were recently released, and as usual, the journals with the highest impact factors are not necessarily the ones that would be considered the most prestigious. Therefore, the following post from the archives, about an alternative rating…

2 pts
1)I hate when they lump review journals in with primary research journals.
2) They don't seem to have the BMC or PLOS journals in there

Other than that, I like it

By Paul Orwin (not verified) on 21 Mar 2007 #permalink

I didn't see them in a quick search. I'll look again

By Paul Orwin (not verified) on 22 Mar 2007 #permalink