Rapid Responses to:

FEATURE: Gareth Williams Should we ditch impact factors? BMJ 2007; 334: 568 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Fundamental flaws in impact factor

Vadakkuppattu D Ramanathan   (17 March 2007)

Fundamental flaws in impact factor 17 March 2007
Vadakkuppattu D Ramanathan, Deputy Director (Sr Grade), Tuberculosis Research Centre, Chennai, 600007, India Send response to journal: Re: Fundamental flaws in impact factor	While we all want some 'quantitative' index to assess quality, we commit one basic mistake. We may agree (even if not always correct) that a journal with high impact factor may publish high 'quality' papers. On the other hand, it is unscientific to throw out as bad a paper published in a 'low impact' journal. I cannot think of a more illogical and unscientific conclusion than this. Yet, day in day out, this is what all the committees which decide on promotions and grants do. They never even read the title of the paper. Most of the committees look only at the title of the journal! I have come across one more practice. When scientists apply for promotion, they are ranked by adding the impact factor of the papers they have published, divide it by the number of years (usually 5)under consideration. We call ourselves scientists! Can we come out with a more scientific way of assessing people? V.D.Ramanathan MB, PhD (London). Competing interests: I am scientist whose grants and promotions depend on where I publish my papers and to that extent I am affected by impact factors. However, I do not have any competing financial interests.