Epidemiology

Skip Navigation LinksHome > May 2008 - Volume 19 - Issue 3 > How Come Scientists Uncritically Adopt and Embody Thomson's...
Epidemiology:
doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31816b73ab
Commentary: IMPACT FACTOR

How Come Scientists Uncritically Adopt and Embody Thomson's Bibliographic Impact Factor?

Porta, Miquela; Álvarez-Dardet, Carlosb,c

Collapse Box

Abstract

The bibliographic impact factor (BIF) of Thomson Scientific is sometimes not a valid scientometric indicator for a number of reasons. One major reason is the strong influence of the number of “source items” or “articles” for each journal that the company chooses each year as BIF's denominator. The irresistible fascination with (and picturesque uses of) a construct as scientifically weak as BIF are simple reminders that scientists are embedded in and embody culture.

© 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Twitter  Facebook 

Login

Article Tools

Share

Article Level Metrics