Journal impact factor - Handle with care.

Dear sir,

Researchers have frequently voiced their concern on the scientific utility of the quantitative metrics called the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), especially when it comes to assessing the quality of science.

What follow is numerous suggestions and corrective measures such as modifying the formula used in calculation of JIF, proposals to devise novel more reliable indices, keeping a check of self-citations etc. JIF is certainly a flawed tool when it comes to assessing the researcher/scientist or for that matter quality of the research work [1]. But then was it meant for doing so? Does the problem lie with the index or with the people who use it inappropriately? These are certainly the questions to ponder on. Quantification of quality will always be a tricky issue to handle, and so any proposal of modifying the existing index or even finding a more reliable index remains a distant reality. Suggestions such as including the number of cited articles in the past year instead of past two years in calculating JIF may not be amenable solution owing to the differences in the citation patterns in relation to different disciplines. What can be worked out is preventing its misuse and manipulations at various levels. The issues in terms of self-citations, more citations for review articles, differences in citations for articles published in a journal, and disparity in JIF between specialties etc. limits the use of JIF is assessment of research. It must be understood that self-citations by the journals and authors does not affect the JIF the same way. While self-citations by the authors increases the author citation score, it is the journal self-citation that influences the JIF. But then genuine self-citation should not be deterred for the same reason. Ultimately it is the quality of the article and the subject it deals with that should primarily determine the citations that it receives irrespective of the category in which it is submitted. Corrective measures proposed in response to our letter have been argued a number of times, but without any definite conclusions. The best answer to the frequent doubts on the utility of JIF thus, lies in its judicious use especially when a researcher is to be assessed for promotions, allocation of grants, and for the quality of the research work.