Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania

Arturo Casadevall · Ferric C. Fang

196 citations0/0 files storedmBio

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

ABSTRACT Numerous essays have addressed the misuse of the journal impact factor for judging the value of science, but the practice continues, primarily as a result of the actions of scientists themselves. This seemingly irrational behavior is referred to as "impact factor mania." Although the literature on the impact factor is extensive, little has been written on the underlying causes of impact factor mania. In this perspective, we consider the reasons for the persistence of impact factor mania and its pernicious effects on science. We conclude that impact factor mania persists because it confers significant benefits to individual scientists and journals. Impact factor mania is a variation of the economic theory known as the "tragedy of the commons," in which scientists act rationally in their own self-interests despite the detrimental consequences of their actions on the overall scientific enterprise. Various measures to reduce the influence of the impact factor are considered. IMPORTANCE Science and scientists are currently afflicted by an epidemic of mania manifested by associating the value of research with the journal where the work is published rather than the content of the work itself. The mania is causing profound distortions in the way science is done that are deleterious to the overall scientific enterprise. In this essay, we consider the forces responsible for the persistence of the mania and conclude that it is maintained because it disproportionately benefits elements of the scientific enterprise, including certain well-established scientists, journals, and administrative interests. Our essay suggests steps that can be taken to deal with this debilitating and destructive epidemic.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 196 citations exist upstream.

References

1968The Matthew Effect in Science 1968The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered.2006The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor 1970The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1997Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research 1945Science: The Endless Frontier 2012Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications 2021Science, the Endless Frontier

Cited by

2020How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists 2015Competitive Science: Is Competition Ruining Science?2018The Impact Factor Fallacy 2016Life Science’s Average Publishable Unit (APU) Has Increased over the Past Two Decades 2022Who games metrics and rankings? Institutional niches and journal impact factor inflation 2015Impacted Science: Impact Is Not Importance

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.