There used to be times when authors used to say that they had their research article published in a high-impact journal. They would often tell their friends and colleagues about the impact factor of the specific journal.
However, slowly, everything changed. As a result, the impact factor is a highly controversial measure of the journal’s credibility. It is such a contentious issue that DOAJ now says they do not approve of Impact Factors or ranking metrics use.
It means that many reputed indexing systems, including DOAJ, would not index a journal that demonstrates impact factors. However, there are a couple of exceptions, like DOAJ allows if these ranking metrics are provided by Scopus or Clarivate.
What is the impact factor?
In simple words, it is a measure of a journal’s influence in a specific field. It quantifies the average number of citations received by journal articles published during a particular period. In essence, the impact factor reflects the perceived importance and reach of a journal’s content, indicating how frequently other researchers cite its articles.
The impact factor is about the journal’s prestige. Researchers often strive to publish their work in prestigious journals to gain recognition and enhance their professional standing. Furthermore, journal prestige is often associated with research quality, as prestigious journals are often considered to publish high-quality and groundbreaking research.
So, the question is, why did it become controversial if the impact factor is so good and such an important piece of information about any journal?
Criticism of the impact factor
There are many reasons why this tool has become a subject of debate. For example, some researchers consider it a valuable tool for assessing journal influence and evaluating research quality; others argue that it is an oversimplified and flawed metric.
The impact factor is calculated by dividing the total number of citations received by articles published in a journal during a specific period by the total number of articles published in the same journal during that period. For example, if a journal had 100 articles published in 2022 and received a total of 500 citations for articles published in 2020 and 2021, its impact factor would be 5.
Eugene Garfield first introduced the concept of the impact factor in the 1960s as a means to evaluate scientific journals. Initially, it was intended to assist librarians in selecting journals for their collections. Over the years, the impact factor gained prominence and became widely used in academic circles. However, it has also faced criticism for its potential shortcomings and limitations, prompting the exploration of alternative metrics.
Issues with the reliability of impact factor
One of the primary criticisms of the impact factor is its susceptibility to various limitations and biases. For instance, the impact factor calculation only considers citations received by articles within a specific time window, often two years. This approach may disadvantage journals that publish articles with longer citation half-lives, such as those in fields with longer research cycles.
Critics argue that the impact factor does not necessarily reflect the actual quality or significance of research published in a journal. For example, it is possible for journals with high-impact factors to publish a mix of groundbreaking studies and less impactful articles. Consequently, relying solely on the impact factor may not provide a comprehensive assessment of a journal’s research quality.
The impact factor has inadvertently influenced publishing practices, leading to phenomena such as “citation chasing” and the publication of more review articles and methodological papers, which tend to receive more citations. This focus on citation count can undermine the publication of original research and discourage scientists from pursuing innovative, riskier projects that may take longer to generate impact.
And finally, what people are not discussing is that impact factor rating puts newly launched journals at a significant disadvantage. Additionally, another important thing no one is talking about is that most valued citation factors, impact factors, and metric systems are controlled by a few publishers. It means that even some of the highly reputed impact factor metrics might be biased and even prone to manipulations. It is always unwise to disregard human nature and its influence on various things, research, calculations, and metrics.
Further, the issue is that comparing journals of different research fields may be problematic using impact factors. For example, some fields of science are less popular, and naturally, journals in those fields would have a lower impact factor, even if those journals are making a significant impact in that field.
Finally, it is also worth understanding that impact factor calculation is based on citations in other research papers. However, times are changing. For example, some research papers may be extensively cited by other online resources and thus may have a significant impact on the field, yet it would not be counted.
Alternative Metrics for Assessing Journal Prestige
Altmetrics offer an alternative approach to evaluating research impact and journal prestige. These metrics capture broader scholarly activities, including social media attention, article downloads, and online discussions. Altmetrics aim to reflect the real-time visibility and influence of research outputs, going beyond traditional citation-based metrics like the impact factor.
Alternative metrics should not be seen as replacements for the impact factor but rather as complementary measures. Each metric offers unique insights into research visibility and impact. While the impact factor may remain important in certain contexts, combining it with alternative metrics can provide a more holistic assessment of a journal’s prestige and research quality.
Evaluating Journal Quality Beyond the Impact Factor
Research quality is influenced by several factors beyond the impact factor. These include the expertise and reputation of the authors, the soundness of the study design and methodology, the novelty and significance of the research question, and the robustness of the data analysis and interpretation. Evaluating these factors requires a more comprehensive and multifaceted approach to ensure a fair assessment of research quality.
Another important thing that no one seems to be discussing is that metrics like impact factors put authors from specific backgrounds at a disadvantage. For example, high impact journals often charge massive article publishing fees or processing fees. Or they might not publish manuscripts from authors from specific geo-locations. Thus, authors from these countries or from specific backgrounds remain less cited. However, this does not mean that their research is less relevant. In fact, their research may be highly relevant to their community or nation.
Recap of Key Points
In conclusion, the impact factor debate centers on assessing journal prestige and research quality. The impact factor is controversial due to limitations, biases, and oversimplification. Alternative metrics, like altmetrics, offer a broader perspective by considering social media and online engagement. Evaluating journal quality should include factors beyond the impact factor, such as author expertise and study design. It’s important to recognize the potential disadvantages faced by authors from certain backgrounds. Relevance should be assessed within specific communities.
