Impact factors 'flawed, misleading and unfair'.

Byline: Tracey Caldwell

Impact factors 'flawed, misleading and unfair'

An argument has erupted about the impact factor measure of scientific journals following an editorial in the journal Retrovirology damning Thomson Scientific's Impact Factor (IF) metric as flawed, misleading and unfair.

In his editorial, Kuan-Teh Jeang, of the National Institutes of Health in the US, argued that IFs had contributed to inaccurate perceptions of the quality of scientific articles and asked whether it was time to consider individual metrics.

"There is a brewing concern among thoughtful scientists about what would be the best metric to use," Jeang told IWR.

He said that his concerns arose when his editorial team wanted to try and get the word out about the journal but because it was only four years old it was too young to qualify for the all-important IF figure.

"In its kingmaker role, Thomson selectively chooses data," Jeang said. "Retrovirology has in excess of 1,000 citations from Thomson-tracked journals and more than 200 published items. PLoS Pathogens got an IF based on 38 papers and a much smaller number of citations Credibility is lost if the rules are different. Thomson should publish its rules."