The impact factor fallacy

73Citations
Citations of this article
91Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The use of the journal impact factor (JIF) as a measure for the quality of individual manuscripts and the merits of scientists has faced significant criticism in recent years. We add to the current criticism in arguing that such an application of the JIF in policy and decision making in academia is based on false beliefs and unwarranted inferences. To approach the problem, we use principles of deductive and inductive reasoning to illustrate the fallacies that are inherent to using journal-based metrics for evaluating the work of scientists. In doing so, we elaborate that if we judge scientific quality based on the JIF or other journal-based metrics we are either guided by invalid or weak arguments or in fact consider our uncertainty about the quality of the work and not the quality itself.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Paulus, F. M., Cruz, N., & Krach, S. (2018). The impact factor fallacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(AUG). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01487

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free