The IF is a poor measure of the worth of journals, journal articles and authors
Tell me the number; what is the ranking? All of us seem to love ratings. Whether it is the standings in the Rugby World Cup, the box office success of Harry Potter or the melting rate of Arctic ice, we all want numbers. So, why would it be any different for medical journal articles or even medical journals themselves?
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- Medscape General Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Correspondence:
- 1. Lundberg G. The quality and influence of JAMA. JAMA 1988; 259: 1947.
- 2. Frank E. Authors' criteria for selecting journals. JAMA 1994; 272: 163-164.
- 3. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997; 314: 498-502.
- 4. Walter G, Bloch S, Hunt G, Fisher K. Counting on citations: a flawed way to measure quality. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 280-281.<eMJA full text>
- 5. Lundberg GD, Pace BP. One hundred years of JAMA landmark articles. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1997.
- 6. Garfield E. 100 citation classics from the Journal of the American Medical Association. JAMA 1987; 257: 52-59.
- 7. Salk JE. Considerations in the preparation and use of poliomyelitis virus vaccine. JAMA 1955; 158: 1239-1248.
- 8. Sabin AB, Ramos-Alvarez M, Alvarez-Amezquita J, et al. Live, orally given poliovirus vaccine. JAMA 1960; 173: 1521-1526.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.