Bibliometrics: An obituary for the impact factor

Por:  Richard J. Roberts 

Nature 546, 600 (29 June 2017) doi:10.1038/546600e
Published online 28 June 2017


Eugene Garfield, who was key to the development of bibliometrics, died in February. Many obituaries testify to his achievements (see, for example, P. Wouters Nature 5434922017). But I find little of worth in one of the most celebrated outcomes of his scientific investigations — the impact factor. I suggest that the time has come to formally declare this metric’s demise.

The impact factor is often used, improperly, to provide a mathematical measure of a scientist’s productivity, on the basis of where they published their results. It has proved popular with bureaucrats, and even with many researchers, because it seems to offer an easy way to determine the value of a scientist’s output for someone who is either unable or too lazy to read that scientist’s papers and judge their true worth (see P. Stephan et alNature 5444114122017).

It was and still is demonstrably ill-suited to this purpose — as many journals, including those of the American Society for Microbiology, are starting to admit (Nature It should never have been used and has done great damage to science. Let us bury it once and for all.



Share Button

Dejar un comentario

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *