{"id":5904,"date":"2019-07-18T14:23:47","date_gmt":"2019-07-18T14:23:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/?p=5904"},"modified":"2019-07-18T14:23:47","modified_gmt":"2019-07-18T14:23:47","slug":"next-generation-journal-metrics-leaving-the-impact-factor-behind","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/2019\/07\/18\/next-generation-journal-metrics-leaving-the-impact-factor-behind\/","title":{"rendered":"Next-generation journal metrics: leaving the impact factor behind"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Market<\/p>\n

The journal impact factor has long dominated the assessment of scholarly publishing. Based on citation indexing<\/a>, and conceived<\/a> over four decades ago, the impact factor\u2019s creators unlikely anticipated its widespread adoption and longevity, nor its purported misuse<\/a>. Yet the winds seem set to change. In a recent article<\/a> in Nature<\/a><\/em>, Paul Wouters and his co-authors insist that scholarly publishing needs a \u201cbroader, more-transparent suite\u201d of journal indicators, and explore what this might look like.<\/p>\n

As the authors highlight, to determine how best to judge a journal, it is paramount to consider the question, \u201cWhat\u2019s a journal for?\u201d. They identify journals\u2019 key functions as registering, curating, evaluating, disseminating and archiving research and note that the impact factor may only capture limited aspects of these. While all journal functions should be evaluated, the authors warn that \u201chaving more indicators does not equate to having better ones\u201d. They propose that the next generation of journal indicators should be designed and implemented responsibly to meet the following criteria:<\/p>\n