Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?
Ludo Waltman, Vincent A. Traag

TL;DR
This paper critically examines statistical arguments against using journal impact factors for assessing individual articles, showing that such arguments are flawed and that impact factors can sometimes be appropriate indicators.
Contribution
The paper provides a theoretical and simulation-based analysis demonstrating that statistical criticisms of impact factors are unfounded and that impact factors can be valid under certain conditions.
Findings
Statistical arguments against impact factors are not supported by analysis.
Under some conditions, impact factors outperform citation counts as indicators.
The debate should focus on socio-technical implications rather than statistical flaws.
Abstract
Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. Using computer simulations, we demonstrate that under certain conditions the number of citations an article has received is a more accurate…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
