Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;334:568 (17 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39146.549225.BE
Gareth Williams, dean
Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bristol, Bristol BS2 8DZ
gareth.williams@bris.ac.uk
Even advocates of impact factors admit that they are a flawed measure of quality. Gareth Williams believes we should get rid of them whereas Richard Hobbs thinks refinement is the answer
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Proper measurement of the quality of research requires a thorough understanding of the subject, balanced evaluation of evidence (which may take years to acquire), and ultimately consensus among experts. All in all, a tall orderas shown by the decades which the Nobel Prize Committee may take to recognise achievement and by the controversy which often follows its decisions.
Enter the impact factor, which at first sight is a welcome solution to this conundrum.1 The impact factor has become the global currency for a journal's scientific standing and, by implication, of the papers it publishes. Available at the click of a mouse (http://scientific.thomson.com/isi/) from the Institute of Scientific Information and updated every year, the impact factor has three decimal place precision and an impressive range from close to zero to over 30. Some journals delight in flaunting their impact factors, and when the big names such as Nature do
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses