Slide de resumo

1. Slide de resumo THE IMPACT FACTOR OF MEDICAL JOURNALS: ITS USE AND MISUSE

2. THE IMPACT FACTOR OF MEDICAL JOURNALS: ITS USE AND MISUSE Luis Benítez-Bribiesca Editor-in-Chief Archives of Medical Research (México)

3. IMPACT FACTOR Counting references to rank the use of scientific journals was reported as early as 1927 by Gross and Gross. The term “impact factor” was not used until the publication of the 1961 in Science Citation Index (SCI) in 1963. This led to a byproduct, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), and a burgeoning literature using bibliometric measures. Source: Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 1966; 313:413-5.

4. IMPACT FACTOR The most used data in the JCR are impact factors-ratios obtained from dividing citations received in 1 year (numerator) by papers published during the two previous years (denominator). JCR’s impact calculations are based on original research and review articles, as well as on notes. Letters of the type published in the BMJ and the Lancet are not included in the publication count, but all references are counted in the numerator.

5. IMPACT FACTOR The scope of bibliometric studies is the treatment and quantitative analysis of scientific publications. They belong to the so-called “social studies of science” and science policy constitutes one of its main applied fields.

6. JOURNALS WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT FACTOR IN 1969Source: Farfield E. Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation. Science 1972; 178:471

7. JOURNALS WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT FACTOR IN 1999Source: Journal Citation Reports (JCR) on CD-ROM 1999 Science Edition Journal RankingsSorted by Impact Factor

8. JOURNALS PUBLISHING REVIEW ARTICLES WITHINTHE 50 MOST CITED IN 1969 Source: Garfield E. Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation. Science 1972; 178:471 Source Garfield.....Source Garfield.....

9. JOURNALS PUBLISHING REVIEW ARTICLES WITHIN THE 50 MOST CITED IN 1999Source: Journal of Citation Reports (JCR) on CD-ROM 1999 Science Edition Journal Rankings Sorted by Impact Factor.

10. BIOMEDICAL JOURNALS WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT FACTOR (1999)Source: Journal Citation Reports (JCR) on CD-ROM 1999 Science Edition Journal Rankings Sorted by Impact Factor

11. MEDICAL JOURNALS WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT FACTOR (1999)Source: Journal Citation Reports (JCR) on CD-ROM 1999 Science Edition Journal Rankings Sorted by Impact Factor

12. THE USE OF IMPACT FACTOR The impact factor is being used with increasing frequency to evaluate the quality of a journal and the relevance of individual scientific output despite a number of articles and claims that challenge the use of this index as a sound criterion for judging the quality of both research and journals. It is frequently overlooked that Garfield himself, the inventor of the IF, emphasized that its potential value would be primarily in the management of library journal collections to determine their optimum makeup, providing solid basis for cost-benefit analysis of subscription budgets.

13. THE USE OF IMPACT FACTOR The impact of the IF has been so great that its use has been injudiciously extended to judge the quality of a journal and what is more distressing, the quality of scientific output. Furthermore if the IF is taken as an indication for orienting editorial policies, then scientists and journals in peripheral fields would find increasing difficulties in publishing important contributions out of the mainstreams of current scientific research. In other words, this possesses the danger to halt scientific creativity and freedom.

14. THE MISUSE OF IMPACT FACTOR Traditionally, committees formed by senior scientists scrutinize the scientific production of the candidate and mainly judge the quantity and quality of their publications. Quantity is easily evaluated, involving counting the number of articles, whereas quality is a notoriously difficult aspect to appraise, in that subjectivity and bias frequently overshadow the process.

15. THE MISUSE OF IMPACT FACTOR Most evaluation committees in developing nations currently base promotions, resource allocations, and awards solely on citation indices and IF, particularly in the medical field. What is more surprising is that most scientists and peer reviewers seem to be convinced that this is the best method for considering scientific quality.

16. THE MISUSE OF IMPACT FACTOR Hecht et al warn that IF should not be misused to evaluate journals or to validate scientific relevance, especially in decisions regarding employment, funding, and academic promotions. They emphasize that IF has clearly become a key marketing tool in biomedical publishing, and fear that editorial policies, once determined by scientific editors, may increasingly be dictated by executives and accountants.

17. THE MISUSE OF IMPACT FACTOR Garfield points out that successful editors and publishers know that in order to improve the editorial quality of journals, there is no substitute for good judgment, quality, and relevance. Impact and other citation measures merely report the facts.

18. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE JOURNAL IMPACT FACTORS Journal impact factors are not statistically representative of individual journal articles. Journal impact factors correlate poorly with actual citations of individual articles. Review articles are heavily cited and inflate the impact factor of journals. Long articles collect many citations and yield high journal impact factors. Short publications lag allows many short-tem journal self-citations and produces a high journal impact factor. Citations in the national language of the journal are preferred by the journal’s authors. Database has an English language bias. The database is dominated by U.S. Publications. Impact factor depends on the dynamics (expansion or contraction) of the research field. Small research fields tend to lack journals with high impact. The citation of articles determines journal impact but not viceversa . Citation is biased when publications come from scientifically less developed countries. A good example is what occurs in Latin America.

19. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR Articles that came directly from Latin America in 1995 represented only 1.8% of the total. Even so, this represents an increase from 1981, in which year the figure was 1.3%. Another important finding was that 85% of the scientific articles originating in Latin America came from only four countries: Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Chile. These articles were cited between 40% and 60% less than the world average for papers in the same field.

20. LEADING LATIN AMERICAN NATIONS CITED IN THE SCISource: Ardila R. Scientific Publishing in Latin America. Mexico (1999)

21. CLINICAL MEDICINE AND EMERGING FIELDS There is a great difference in the numbers of citations between basic biomedical research and purely clinical publications. Biomedical research, particularly if releated to molecular genetics, tends to be highly cited, while clinical publications are not. Clinical medicine publications draw heavily on basic science references, but not viceversa.

22. CLINICAL MEDICINE AND EMERGING FIELDS The goals of the scientist can be diverted from the original purpose of scientific endeavor towards achieving a higher citation rate, especially in the biomedical sciences. To obtain the benefits of funding and academic promotion, most medical scientists prefer to work in molecular genetics rather than to participate in patient-oriented research. This is contributing to the progressive decline of physician-scientists.

23. AGONY OF IF. THE INTERNET The radical change brought about by the Web for publishing and searching scientific literature is changing the classical scheme of printed library collections and private journal subscriptions. It is, therefore, foreseeable that the IF will lose its significance to the extent that electronic publishing and free access to databases substitute for printed journals.