Paper Info
Title
Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles need not be wrong.
Abstract
Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. In fact, our computer simulations demonstrate the possibility that the impact factor is a more accurate indicator of the value of an article than the number of citations the article has received. The debate on the impact factor and its use in research evaluations is very important, but this debate should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments.
Year
Venue
Field
2017
arXiv: Digital Libraries
Data science,San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment,Actuarial science,Skewness,Computer science,Citation,Operations research,Impact factor
DocType
Volume
Citations 
Journal
abs/1703.02334
7
PageRank 
References 
Authors
0.56
20
2
Name
Order
Citations
PageRank
Ludo Waltman12236105.47
Vincent A. Traag21079.04