Talk:Citation impact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Don't merge[edit]

  • No, "citation impact" should not be merged with the "Impact Factor" article - citation impact is different from (broader than) Impact Factor. Impact Factor = Journal Impact Factor (JIF), i.e. a measure on the "journal level". Citation impact can be much broader and can for example be the impact of a particular article or researcher, which is different from the JUF ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:30, 6 June 2006
  • I agree with the above: the Journal Impact Factor is the average citation count for a journal, but individual articles and authors have citation counts too, and so do works other than journal articles, such as books. Merging citation impact with the journal impact factor would be merging a sharper instrument (individual citation counts) with a duller instrument (average citation counts). Moreover there are journal-specific controversies about the journal impact factor that are irrelevant to individual citation counts, and should not be allowed to merge with or submerge them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talkcontribs) 22:54, 17 June 2006

I also do not think the two should be merged. I might not have found the information I was looking for, on this page, if "citation" wasn't in the title. "Impact factor" isn't enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:33, 6 July 2006

I also Agree, Journal Impact Factors or JIF's are something that ISI thompson have adopted and are unique and should remain sepeate from citation impact —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:19, 25 August 2006

I agree as well. Impact Factors are specific, having an exact definition. They have been analyzed in detail in many published works, and the discussion of them should be kept separate. "Citation impact" is a much vaguer term. In addition, the definition given in this article (average citations per article) is not correct, as a comparison with the true article on impact factors will show. Keep them apart. — DGG 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is consensus from all sides. DGG 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


The principal contents of this article seems to duplicate the section 9 Bibliography of Empirical Studies on Open Access in the article on Open access. Since the open access artice is quite long, perhaps it should appear only here, with a suitable reference.DGG 02:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

16 References?[edit]

Are all 16 articles listed as references for this 3 paragraph (plus bulleted list) 10 line article.

A Reference is a resource actively used to create the article. Information from a reference must be actually included in the article itself.--ZayZayEM 01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's quite apt that an article on citations uses many citations. Not a reason to keep that many, but it made me laugh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Included most references into (expanded) article as suggested by ZayZayEM. There are still a couple that look iffy. --Fmenczer (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)