Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research

@article{Seglen1997WhyTI,
  title={Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research},
  author={P. Seglen},
  journal={BMJ},
  year={1997},
  volume={314},
  pages={497}
}
Evaluating scientific quality is a notoriously difficult problem which has no standard solution. Ideally, published scientific results should be scrutinised by true experts in the field and given scores for quality and quantity according to established rules. In practice, however, what is called peer review is usually performed by committees with general competence rather than with the specialist's insight that is needed to assess primary research data. Committees tend, therefore, to resort to… Expand
Citation rates and impact factors: should they matter?
  • G. Whitehouse
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • The British journal of radiology
  • 2001
The journal impact factor: too much of an impact?
Journal impact factors and research submission pressures
Scientific evaluation of the scholarly publications
Alternative metrics for measuring the quality of articles and journals
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 56 REFERENCES
Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation.
The Skewness of Science
  • P. Seglen
  • Computer Science
  • J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.
  • 1992
Chance and consensus in peer review.
Science indicators derived from databases
  • H. M. Artus
  • Sociology, Computer Science
  • Scientometrics
  • 1996
...
1
2
3
4
5
...