Abstract

Journals are ranked in the subject categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) according to their impact factors (JIF). The calculation of this indicator includes both citations received from other journals and self-citations from the journal itself. In this paper the current model of the JCR is compared with an alternate model using the JIF without self-citations as a variable. In order to do this, simulations were carried out using JIF without self-citations as an alternative variable. We studied the relationship between the two variables (JIF with self-citations and JIF without self-citations), the gain obtained by the journals with the usual JIF with self-citations, the changes in the ranking in the whole JCR, and changes in the internal ranking in the JCR’s subject categories. A small negative correlation was found between the gain that the journals obtained and their JIF. The results obtained suggest that if JIF without self-citations were used as the variable, the ranking of journals in the JCR and within the subject categories would be, in general, very different from the current one. The quantification of these differences is one of the more interesting results of this work.

Abstract

This letter is a call to the Spanish scientific authorities to abandon current research evaluation policies, which are based on an excessive and indiscriminate use of bibliometric indicators for nearly all areas of scientific activity. This narrow evaluation focus is especially applied to assess the individual performance of researchers. To this end, we first describe the contexts in which the journal impact factor (JIF) and other bibliometric indicators are being used. We then consider the toxic effects of this abuse of indicators. Finally, we outline some significant transformations and initiatives being introduced in various academic fields and regions of the world. These international initiatives offer alternatives to bibliometrics that can improve evaluation processes, and we urge political leaders in Spain to adopt and develop them.

Abstract

This umpteenth statement, although doubtlessly brilliant, arrives late and badly, since it not only insists on a strategy that has not worked but also avoids building the consensus that is necessary in the Spanish-speaking bibliometric community, a community that may not be mustered in this way to the extent that it remains far from a unanimous position. There will be conflicting interests, academic debate, and various publications, but action must finally occur via powerful lobbies, direct interviews with those responsible, and alternative, practical approaches. This letter, beyond its correct evaluations, does not propose real or viable scenarios, and not even short- or medium-term transitions, much less strategies that would be sustainable over time.