Porta Serra, Miquel, Álvarez-Dardet, Carlos
How come scientists uncritically adopt and embody Thomson’s bibliographic impact factor?
PORTA SERRA, Miquel; ÁLVAREZ-DARDET DÍAZ, Carlos. "How come scientists uncritically adopt and embody Thomson’s bibliographic impact factor?". Epidemiology. Vol. 19, No. 3 (May 2008). ISSN 1044-3983, pp. 370-371
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/9602
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31816b73ab
ISSN: 1044-3983 (Print)
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.
Keywords:Bibliographic impact factor, Indicator, Construct
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
info:eu-repo/semantics/article