Scrambling for higher metrics in the Journal Impact Factor bubble period: a real-world problem in science management and its implications
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(1).2020.05
-
Article InfoVolume 18 2020, Issue #1, pp. 48-56
- Cited by
- 992 Views
-
192 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Universities and funders in many countries have been using Journal Impact Factor (JIF) as an indicator for research and grant assessment despite its controversial nature as a statistical representation of scientific quality. This study investigates how the changes of JIF over the years can affect its role in research evaluation and science management by using JIF data from annual Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to illustrate the changes. The descriptive statistics find out an increase in the median JIF for the top 50 journals in the JCR, from 29.300 in 2017 to 33.162 in 2019. Moreover, on average, elite journal families have up to 27 journals in the top 50. In the group of journals with a JIF of lower than 1, the proportion has shrunk by 14.53% in the 2015–2019 period. The findings suggest a potential ‘JIF bubble period’ that science policymaker, university, public fund managers, and other stakeholders should pay more attention to JIF as a criterion for quality assessment to ensure more efficient science management.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)I23, O32, O38
-
References31
-
Tables3
-
Figures3
-
- Figure 1. An example of the SQL code
- Figure 2. Distribution of JCR-covered journals for 2019 against JIF 2018 ranges
- Figure 3. Growth rates of JIF groups, 2015–2019
-
- Table 1. Top 50 journals by JIF, JCR 2017–2019
- Table 2. Cumulative numbers of journals against progressive JIF levels
- Table 3. Numbers of journals and JIF thresholds for top groups and Q1/Q2/Q3 groups
-
- Amin, M., & Mabe, M. A. (2000). Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing, 1, 1-6.
- Arnold, D. N., & Fowler, K. K. (2011). Nefarious numbers. Notices of the AMS, 58(3), 434-437.
- Berenbaum, M. R. (2019). Impact factor impacts on early-career scientist careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(34), 16659-16662.
- Bordons, M., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics, 53(2), 195-206.
- Bornmann, L. (2011). Mimicry in science? Scientometrics, 86(1), 173-177.
- Brown, H. (2007). How impact factors changed medical publishing – and science. BMJ, 334(7593), 561-564.
- DORA. (n.d.). DORA Roadmap: A two-year strategic plan for advancing global research assessment reform at the institutional, national, and funder level.
- DORA. (n.d.). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.
- Editoral, N. (2015). Publish or perish. Nature, 521(159).
- Garfield, E. (1955). Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108-111.
- Garfield, E. (1972). Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471-479.
- Garfield, E. (1994). The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor.
- Götz, F.M. (2019). Publish, but don’t perish to publish. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1009.
- Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572.
- Langin, K. (2019). For academics, what matters more: journal prestige or readership? Science.
- Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2019). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 3-24). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
- Mabiso, A., Rheenen, T. V., & Ferguson, J. (2013). Organizational Partnerships for Food Policy Research Impact A Review of What Works.
- McKiernan, E. C., Schimanski, L. A., Muñoz Nieves, C., Matthias, L., Niles, M. T., & Alperin, J. P. (2019). Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. PeerJ Preprints, 7.
- Moustafa, K. (2015). The Disaster of the Impact Factor. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 139-142.
- Nature Editoral. (2017). Don’t pay prizes for published science. Nature, 547(7662).
- Neuberger, J., & Counsell, C. (2002). Impact factors: uses and abuses. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 14(3), 209-211.
- Niles, M. T., Schimanski, L. A., McKiernan, E. C., & Alperin, J. P. (2019). Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion, and tenure expectations. bioRxiv.
- Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2020). How to avoid borrowed plumes in academia. Research Policy, 49(1), 103831.
- Shibayama, S., & Baba, Y. (2015). Impact-oriented science policies and scientific publication practices: The case of life sciences in Japan. Research Policy, 44(4), 936-950.
- Snoek, A. (2019). Why publishing should be a pleasure, not a pressure. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1032.
- Sornette, D., & Cauwels, P. (2015). Financial Bubbles: Mechanisms and Diagnostics. Review of Behavioral Economics, 2(3), 279-305.
- Sumpter, J. P. (2019). What makes a good scientist? Karl Fent as an example. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 376, 233-238.
- Tregoning, J. (2018). How will you judge me if not by impact factor? Nature, 558(345).
- Trinh, P. T. T, Le, T. H. T, Vuong, T. T., Hoang, P. H. (2019). The question of quality. In: The Vietnamese Social Sciences at a Fork in the Road (pp. 121–142). Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter.
- Vuong, Q.-H. (2019a). Breaking barriers in publishing demands a proactive attitude. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1034.
- Vuong, Q.-H. (2019b). The harsh world of publishing in emerging regions and implications for editors and publishers: The case of Vietnam. Learned Publishing, 32(4), 314-324.