The Impact Factor: Time for change
The Impact Factor: Time for change
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/0004867010060502
复制
发表时间：
2001-10-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Walter, G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bloch, S;Walter, G
目的：影响因子（IF）在精神病学文献中几乎没有受到关注，尽管它被长期使用，影响力不断扩大，并且有误用的证据。我们检查IF的有效性作为衡量一个文件的科学价值，并考虑替代方法来进行这样的evaluation.Method：我们探讨了医学数据库和网站，并与公认的专家就subject.Results：无法补救的问题，无论是概念和技术，使IF一个有缺陷的措施。引用保证文章质量的概念是值得怀疑的。此外，综合框架在学术推广和研究资助评估等领域容易被滥用，这是一个严重的事态发展。结论：综合框架（以及由此产生的所有措施）应被放弃。在评估已发表的作品时，“回归基本”已经过时了。尽管评估质量的简单公式很有诱惑力，但捷径是不可用的，也不太可能有用。每年公布一份由同行尽可能客观地判断值得特别关注的论文短名单，可能是一个更有意义的选择。可以想象，每一本精神病学期刊都可以参与到这个循环中，从而产生一个“大的候选名单”。这可以通过在适当的网站上发布，随时提供给所有专业人员，包括研究人员和临床医生。由于同行评议在科学出版中有着长期的作用，我们的建议基本上是这一过程的延伸。
Objective: The Impact Factor (IF) has received virtually no attention in the psychiatric literature, despite its long-term use, expanding influence and evidence of misapplication. We examine the IF's validity as a measure of a paper's scientific worth, and consider alternative ways to conduct such an appraisal.Method: We explored medical databases and websites, and conferred with acknowledged experts on the subject.Results: Irremediable problems, both conceptual and technical, make the IF a flawed measure. The notion that citations vouch for the quality of an article is questionable. Moreover, the IF's vulnerability to misuse in domains such as academic promotion and research grant assessment is a serious development.Conclusion: The IF (and all measures derived from it) should be abandoned. A 'return to basics' in evaluating published work is overdue. As seductive as a simple formula is to assess quality, shortcuts are unavailable and unlikely to be useful. Publishing a short-list of papers annually, judged as objectively as possible by peers to merit special attention, may be a more meaningful option. Conceivably, every psychiatric journal could participate in this cyclical exercise, leading to a 'grand short-list'. This could be made readily available to all professionals, both researchers and clinicians, by being posted on a suitable website. Since peer review has a long-standing role in scientific publishing, our proposal is essentially an extension of that process.