PLOS Medicine and Impact Factors

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>]

The Impact Factor Game
It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature
The PLoS Medicine Editors
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10%2
E1371%2Fjournal%2Epmed%2E0030291

A typical quote from the article and call to action:

"During the course of our discussions with Thompson Scientific, 
PLoS Medicine's potential impact factor-based on the same 
articles published in the same year-seesawed between as much as 
11 (when only research articles are entered into the denominator) 
to less than 3 (when almost all article types in the magazine 
section are included, as Thomson Scientific had initially 
done-wrongly, we argued, when comparing such article types with 
comparable ones published by other medical journals). At the time 
of writing this editorial, we do not know exactly where our 2005 
impact factor has settled. But whatever it turns out to be, as 
you might guess from this editorial, we feel the time has come 
for the process of "deciding" a journal's impact factor to be 
debated openly. Something that affects so many people's careers 
and the future of departments and institutions cannot be kept a 
secret any longer."


Chuck Hamaker
Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services
Atkins Library
University of North Carolina Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223