Talk:Impact factor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject Databases / Computer science  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of database related articles 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Open Access (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Impact factor is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Open (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Impact factor is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Impact factor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

quick fix to make (no time)[edit]

Hi I just have time to mention it here, not to fix it without making a mess: ref. 8 = ref. 48 Jalalian M (2015). "The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them". Electron Physician 7 (2): 1069–72. doi:10.14661/2015.1069-1072. Harald88 (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

New important sources on impact factors[edit]

Following are important recent sources on "impact factors" should be kept at lead paragraph. All are from prominent sources like PLOS, eLife, EMBO Journal, The Royal Society, Nature (journal) and Science (journal).

Impact factors published by Thomson Reuters is crude and also misleading. Impact factors effectively undervalues papers in subjects that are low citations or have less popular irrespective of quality and novelty[1][2]. Collaborative article from Université de Montréal, Imperial College London, PLOS, eLife, EMBO Journal, The Royal Society, Nature (journal) and Science (journal), posted on BioRxiv to follow citation distributions and share metrics as measures of publication quality, these metrics are alternative to widely practicing impact factors[3][4]. Jessie1979 (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding this POV paragraph ("crude and misleading" etc.). The article already has a section for criticisms. Putting POV in the lead and not representing it as such is unencyclopedic and against wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.77.247 (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

No one could seriously argue that saying "crude and misleading" is not POV. Also the paragraph is a poorly written grammatical nightmare that doesn't even have proper subject-verb agreement. Please stop edit warring by repeatedly reinserting this problematic paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.207.48 (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Some Suggested Updates to First Section[edit]

The current second paragraph of the article uses subjective language that is presented as fact - "crude and misleading" and "effectively undervalues." Request to remove this type of language, and place discussion of the articles referenced from Science, Nature, etc. in the "Criticisms" section, not in the lead paragraph, to help keep the article neutral.

Current: Following are important recent sources on "impact factors" should be kept at lead paragraph. All are from prominent sources like PLOS, eLife, EMBO Journal, The Royal Society, Nature (journal) and Science (journal).

"Impact factors published by Thomson Reuters is crude and also misleading. Impact factors effectively undervalues papers in subjects that are low citations or have less popular irrespective of quality and novelty[1][2]. Collaborative article from Université de Montréal, Imperial College London, PLOS, eLife, EMBO Journal, The Royal Society, Nature (journal) and Science (journal), posted on BioRxiv to follow citation distributions and share metrics as measures of publication quality, these metrics are alternative to widely practicing impact factors[3][4]." Mollym3500 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph in question has since been removed by other editors. Altamel (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for discussion, removed Crude and misleading. I kept it as same wording is there at prominent source Nature (journal) . These criticisms should be highlighted because high quality scientific scientific publishers unanimously raised the concerns on impact factors. Jessie1979 (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Those criticisms already exist in the "criticims" section. I've moved your citations there and fixed the grammar and POV. There appears to be a consensus on not including the material in the lead. 99.47.245.32 (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on the response from major quality scientific publishers we should keep this paragraph at lead. Jessie1979 (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Request to please move this line to the "Criticisms" section where it is more relevant. Mollym3500 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

We have a consensus. I have placed the criticisms in the criticisms section, where they clearly belong. This should not be controversial. I've even preserved all the citations. A single editor has been fighting an edit war to do otherwise and it is getting tiresome. Please, stop, Jessie1979. 164.67.77.247 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone removed nature source, i am keeping again and would like to sift to criticism section. It's not vandalism, giving respect to well respected scientific publishers and keeping their comments.  Jessie1979 (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A Few Suggested Updates to Article[edit]

Hello - there's some outdated and/or erroneous info contained within the article as it currently stands, so suggesting some updates that would help bring it more current. Please see below for specific suggestions, and thank you for your consideration and assistance.

First paragraph: Request to add as the second sentence: "Specifically the impact factor comprises all citations to the journal made in year y to items published in years y-1 and y-2 divided by the number of substantive scholarly items published in years y-1 and y-2." Request to edit the sentence: "Impact factors are calculated yearly starting from 1975 for those journals that are listed (remove current "indexed') in the Journal Citation Reports."

Request to remove line "Web of Science (previously known as (ISI) Web of Knowledge) is publishing Journal Citation Reports." as this is inaccurate - Web of Science is itself a solution within the IP & Science division of Thomson Reuters (http://ipscience.thomsonreuters.com/product/web-of-science/).

Request to remove the second paragraph or perhaps place it in a new section, "News." The current sale status is not relevant to the lede. If kept, please remove the Web of Science reference as, again, Web of Science does not publish Impact Factor. It is itself a solution within the IP & Science division of Thomson Reuters.

Calculation Section: Third paragraph: Request to change from current "Occasionally, Thomson Reuters assigns an impact factor to new journals with less than two years of indexing, based on partial citation data.[2][3]" to the following: "Occasionally, Thomson Reuters assigns an impact factor to new journals with less than two years of indexing.[2][3] The calculation always uses two complete and known years of item counts, but for new titles one of the known counts is zero."

Use: Request to change reference to "ISI Web of Knowledge" to "Web of Science Core Collection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_Science)."

Criticisms - Editorial Policies that Affect Impact Factor: Second paragraph, request to change from current: "As a result of negotiations over whether items are "citable", impact factor variations of more than 300% have been observed. Items considered to be uncitable—and thus are not incorporated in impact factor calculations—can, if cited, still enter into the numerator part of the equation despite the ease with which such citations could be excluded. " to "As a result of reconsideration of whether items are "citable", impact factor variations of more than 300% have been observed. Items considered to be uncitable—and thus are not incorporated in impact factor calculations—can, if cited, still enter into the numerator part of the equation."

Thanks again for your consideration of this edit request. Mollym3500 (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Time to remodel the journal impact factor". Nature (journal). 535 (466). 2016. doi:10.1038/535466a. 
  2. ^ John Bohannon (2016). "Hate journal impact factors? New study gives you one more reason". Science (journal). doi:10.1126/science.aag0643. 
  3. ^ Veronique Kiermer (2016). "Measuring Up: Impact Factors Do Not Reflect Article Citation Rates". PLOS. doi:orcid.org/0000-0001-8771-7239 Check |doi= value (help). 
  4. ^ "Ditching Impact Factors for Deeper Data". Retrieved 2016-07-29.