Not-so-deep impact. Nature 2005;435:1003-4. (Editorial) Summary Points :
Impact factors don't tell us as much as some people think about the quality of the science that journals are publishing.
Kurmis AP. Understanding the Limitations of the Journal Impact Factor. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2003;85:2449-54. Summary Points :
1. Extension of the impact factor to the assessment of journal quality or individual authors is inappropriate.
2. Extension of the impact factor to cross-discipline journal comparison is also inappropriate.
Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 1997;314(7079):497. Summary Points :
1. Journal impact factors correlate poorly with actual citations of individual articles
2. Citation rate of article determines journal impact, but not vice versa
Opthof T. Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovascular Research 1997;33:1-7. Summary Points :
1. The impact factor is a valid tool for the quality assessement of scientific journals.
2. The impact factor is not valid for the assessment of the quality of individual papers.
3. The impact factor is not valid for the assessment of the quality of individual scientists.
4. The impact factor is not valid for the assessment of the quality of groups of scientists if they produce fewer than 100 papers in 2 years.
5. For quality assessment of invidual papers, individual scientists and groups of scientists,
citation analysis should be preferred to a priori assumptions on the quality of papers.
6. Citation analysis does not necessarily agree with peer judgement.
7. Citation analysis may render useful a posteriori information on the success of government
and university research policy.
