'Govindram Seksaria Institute of Dacryology', L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad-34, India.
Semin Ophthalmol. 2022 Jan 2;37(1):91-96. doi: 10.1080/08820538.2021.1922713. Epub 2021 May 9.
To provide a brief review of literature on the journal impact factors (JIF) and the newer research metrics being proposed or implemented.
The authors performed a PubMed search of articles published in the English language on the journal impact factors. Data captured include historical perspectives, evolution, calculation, criticisms of JIF and their rebuttals, and organized efforts to address JIF issues, alternate research metrics, and future directions. Specific emphasis was laid on evaluating the criticisms, current lacunae, and the changing practice patterns.
One of the measures to assess the research impact of an article is the number of citations it receives. Hence, citation-based metrics are commonly used for such purposes. While editors and well-known scholars refrain from attributing article success to the journal's prominence, the same is not true for most authors. JIF is still one of the top factors when deciding on an article submission. JIF is today an acceptable objective and quantifiable measure of knowledge dissemination. However, JIF should not be used as a surrogate measure to assess an individual researcher or an individual article. The reverence to JIF in this regard needs to be questioned. While alternate metrics or altmetrics have their advantages and limitations, they nevertheless augur well an era where scientometrics are complementary to one another without undue reliance on a sole parameter.
While there is no need to demonize the JIF, its role in the scholarly assessment should be scaled down. The over-reliance and undue hype surrounding it should be discouraged at multiple scientific levels.
简要回顾期刊影响因子（JIF）的文献以及新提出或实施的研究指标。
作者在英文文献中对期刊影响因子的文章进行了 PubMed 搜索。捕获的数据包括历史视角、演变、计算、对 JIF 的批评及其反驳，以及为解决 JIF 问题、替代研究指标和未来方向而进行的有组织努力。特别强调了评估批评、当前的空白和不断变化的实践模式。
评估文章研究影响力的一种措施是它收到的引用数量。因此，基于引文的指标通常用于此类目的。虽然编辑和知名学者避免将文章的成功归因于期刊的知名度，但大多数作者并非如此。在决定提交文章时，JIF 仍然是最重要的因素之一。JIF 是目前知识传播的可接受的客观和可量化的衡量标准。然而，不应将 JIF 用作评估个人研究人员或个人文章的替代衡量标准。在这方面，对 JIF 的尊重需要受到质疑。虽然替代指标或替代计量有其优点和局限性，但它们预示着一个时代的到来，即科学计量学相互补充，而不会过分依赖单一参数。
虽然没有必要妖魔化 JIF，但应该缩小其在学术评估中的作用。应在多个科学层面上劝阻对其的过度依赖和不适当的炒作。
