# On impact factor


![](https://cdn.hashnode.com/res/hashnode/image/upload/v1743071400482/a6ff2d21-942d-4d40-9f68-e5b0b4ff1a39.jpeg)

> We recommend that the term "impact factor" be abolished and that this measure be renamed in keeping with its actual role, that merely of a time-specific "citation rate index" and nothing more. What is currently called the "impact factor" should not be misused to evaluate journals or to validate the scientific relevance of a particular researcher or research program, especially in decisions regarding employment, funding, and tenure.

(from [_The journal "impact factor": a misnamed, misleading, misused measure_](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9666797/) by **Hecht F**, _et al._)

> Impact Factors reflect the journal not the article, vary with time and correlate only poorly with perceived excellence. Simple comparison of impact factors in different specialties may be misleading. Review journals often have higher Impact Factors than those with original data. Both authors and editors can try to manipulate journal Impact Factors

(from _Impact factors: uses and abuses_ by **James Neuberger** and **Christopher Counsell** - [pdf](http://www.zturk.com/if/Impact%20factors%20-%20uses%20and%20abuses.pdf))