The Impact Factor Fallacy

Frontiers in Psychology 9:324900 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The use of the journal impact factor (JIF) as a measure for the quality of individual manuscripts and the merits of scientists has faced significant criticism in recent years. We add to the current criticism in arguing that such an application of the JIF in policy and decision making in academia is based on false beliefs and unwarranted inferences. To approach the problem, we use principles of deductive and inductive reasoning to illustrate the fallacies that are inherent to using journal based metrics for evaluating the work of scientists. In doing so, we elaborate that if we judge scientific quality based on the JIF or other journal based metrics we are either guided by invalid or weak arguments or in fact consider our uncertainty about the quality of the work and not the quality itself.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,923

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Disaster of the Impact Factor.Khaled Moustafa - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):139-142.
The One Fallacy Theory.Lawrence H. Powers - 1995 - Informal Logic 17 (2).
The Naturalistic Fallacy.Julia Tanner - 2006 - Richmond Journal of Philosophy 13.
The Lord Scroop Fallacy.Herman E. Stark - 2000 - Informal Logic 20 (3).
How the Fallacy of Accident Got Its Name.Allan Bäck - 2015 - Vivarium 53 (2-4):142-169.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-08-21

Downloads
29 (#566,475)

6 months
7 (#486,539)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?