“We just got a paper in an Impact Factor 10 journal … and hope to go higher soon.”
That’s a statement made to me last week. It is wrong on so many levels, but does it matter? Nobel Prize winners think so. The video below from nobelprize.org appeared in my twitter feed on Friday.
Before you watch it, consider this: academics in NZ are being encouraged in promotion applications and in preparing for the next round of NZ Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF), which will allocate millions of dollars to academic institutions, to include a metric of the ranking of the journal. The Impact Factor is the most common metric available.
“The research counts, not the journal!” Nobel Laureates speak out against impact factors pic.twitter.com/jAxuEREKF1
— The Nobel Prize (@NobelPrize) June 22, 2017
P.S. I would not allow a student working with me to present a raw mean of a highly skewed distribution because it so very poorly represents the distribution. However, this is exactly what the Impact Factor does (for those who don’t know the most common impact factor for a journal in any given year is simply the sum of citations of articles from the preceding two years divided by the total number of articles published. The citation distribution is usually skewed because the vast majority of articles receive very few citations in such a short time, but a few receive a lot). There are numerous other problems with it, not the least that it can’t be used to compare “impact” between different disciplines.