Counting on citations: a flawed way to measure quality.
نویسندگان
چکیده
The journal Impact Factor and citation counts are misconstrued and misused as measures of scientific quality. Articles must be read in order to judge their quality. We have introduced a system, which may be easily replicated, to identify the best articles published in a journal.
منابع مشابه
The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor
BACKGROUND Current methods of measuring the quality of journals assume that citations of articles within journals are normally distributed. Furthermore using journal impact factors to measure the quality of individual articles is flawed if citations are not uniformly spread between articles. The aim of this study was to assess the distribution of citations to articles and use the level of non-c...
متن کاملRanking authors using fractional counting of citations: An axiomatic approach
This paper analyzes from an axiomatic point of view a recent proposal for counting citations: the value of a citation given by a paper is inversely proportional to the total number of papers it cites. This way of fractionally counting citations was suggested as a possible way to normalize citation counts between fields of research having different citation cultures. It belongs to the “citing-si...
متن کاملAn index to evaluate the quality of taxonomic publications
The number of citations is not an adequate measure of taxonomic quality, which is a view that is shared with other scientific disciplines (Seglen1997; Valdecasas et al. 2000; Walter et al. 2003). A recent editorial in Nature claims that “... citations are an unreliable measure of importance" (Anon. 2010: 850) and uses two chemistry papers as an example. The first paper was cited 182 times in th...
متن کاملField-normalized impact factors (IFs): A comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs
Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the l...
متن کاملField-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of Rescaling versus Fractionally Counted IFs
Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,695 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CDRom version of SCI) and the 11 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the US National Science Board. We compare (i) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the leng...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- The Medical journal of Australia
دوره 178 6 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2003