À propos de cet article


1. Cope B, Phillips A (editors). The future of the academic journal. Second Edition. Chandos Publishing; 2014. Search in Google Scholar

2. Citrome L. Impact factor? Shmimpact factor!: the journal impact factor, modern day literature searching, and the publication process. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2007;4(5):54-7. Search in Google Scholar

3. Nestor MS, Fischer DL, Arnold D, Berman B, Del Rosso JQ. Rethinking the Journal Impact Factor and Publishing in the Digital Age. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2020;13(1):12-7. Search in Google Scholar

4. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006;295(1):90-3. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.1.90. Search in Google Scholar

5. Garfield E. Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ. 1999;161(8):979-80. Search in Google Scholar

6. Kumar V, Upadhyay S, Medhi B. Impact of the impact factor in biomedical research: its use and misuse. Singapore Med J. 2009;50(8):752-5. Search in Google Scholar

7. Saha S, Saint S, Christakis DA. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc. 2003;91(1):42-6. Search in Google Scholar

8. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997;314(7079):498-502. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497. Search in Google Scholar

9. Favaloro EJ. Measuring the quality of journals and journal articles: The impact factor tells but a portion of the story. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;34(1):7-25. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1066030. Search in Google Scholar

10. Callaway E. Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature. 2016;535(7611):210-1. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2016.20224. Search in Google Scholar

11. Natarajan S. The impact factor story: Part I. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2016;64(9):619. Search in Google Scholar

12. Natarajan S. The impact factor story: Part II. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2016;64(10):701. DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.195019. Search in Google Scholar

13. Todd PA, Ladle RJ. Hidden dangers of a “citation culture”. ESEP. 2008;8(1):13-6. DOI: 10.3354/esep00091. Search in Google Scholar

14. Chorus C, Waltman L. A large-scale analysis of impact factor biased journal self-citations. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0161021. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161021. Search in Google Scholar

15. Burner TW, Rosenthal AK. Diabetes and rheumatic diseases. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2009;21(1):50-4. DOI: 10.1097/BOR.0b013e32831bc0c4. Search in Google Scholar

16. Brumback RA. Worshiping false idols: the impact factor dilemma. J Child Neurol. 2008;23(4):365-7. DOI: 10.1177/0883073808315170. Search in Google Scholar

17. Larivière V, Kiermer V, MacCallum CJ, McNutt M, Patterson M, Pulverer B, et al. A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. bioRxiv. [Internet]. 2016;062109. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/062109v1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/062109. Search in Google Scholar

18. Hemmingsson A, Mygind T, Skjennald A, Edgren J. Manipulation of impact factors by editors of scientific journals. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(3):767. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.178.3.1780767. Search in Google Scholar

19. Disler RT, Gallagher RD, Davidson PM, Sun S-W, Chen L-C, Zhou M, et al. Factors impairing the postural balance in COPD patients and its influence upon activities of daily living. Eur Respir J. 2019;15(1). Search in Google Scholar

20. Esposito M. The IMPACT FACTOR: Its use, misuse and significance. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009;2(2):87. Search in Google Scholar

21. Fernandez-Llimos F. Differences and similarities between Journal Impact Factor and CiteScore. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2018;16(2):1282. DOI: 10.18549/Pharm-Pract.2018.02.1282. Search in Google Scholar

22. Williamson PO, Minter CIJ. Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(1):16-29. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2019.433. Search in Google Scholar

23. Ware M, Mabe M. The STM Report An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. [Internet]. 2015;5:1-180. Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=scholcom. Search in Google Scholar

24. Yoo I, Mosa ASM. Analysis of PubMed user sessions using a full-day PubMed query log: A comparison of experienced and nonexperienced PubMed users. JMIR Med Inform. 2015;3(3):e25. DOI: 10.2196/medinform.3740. Search in Google Scholar

25. Shariff SZ, Bejaimal SA, Sontrop JM, Iansavichus AV, Haynes RB, Weir MA, et al. Retrieving clinical evidence: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for quick clinical searches. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e164. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2624. Search in Google Scholar

26. Humphrey C, Kiseleva O, Schleicher T. A time-series analysis of the scale of coercive journal self-citation and its effect on impact factors and journal rankings. European Accounting Review. 2019;28(2):335-69. DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2018.1470019. Search in Google Scholar

27. Luchilo LJ. Scientific journals: oligopoly and open access. Revista CTS. 2019;14(40):41-79 Search in Google Scholar

28. Di Salvo P. “Coder,” “Activist,” “Hacker”: Aaron Swartz in the Italian, UK, U.S. and Technology Press. International Journal of Communication. 2017;11:1149-68. Search in Google Scholar

29. Björk BC. Acceptance rates of scholarly peer-reviewed journals: A literature survey. El Profesional de la Informacion. [Internet]. 2019;28(4). Available from: https://revista.profesionaldelainformacion.com/index.php/EPI/article/view/epi.2019. jul.07/44764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.jul.07. Search in Google Scholar

30. Walker TJ. Free Internet Access to Traditional Journals. American Scientist. [Internet]. 1998;86(5):463-71. Available from: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/free-internet-access-to-traditional-journals. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1511/1998.37.463. Search in Google Scholar

31. Draux H, Lucraft M, Walker J. Assessing the Open Access effect for Hybrid Journals. Springer Nature. [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://resource-cms.springernature.com/springer-cms/rest/v1/content/15839014/data/v8. Search in Google Scholar

32. Rabesandratana T. Radical open-access plan delayed a year as revised effort seeks more support. In response to criticisms, Plan S also lifts cap on article fees. Science. 2019;364(6444):919. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.364.6444.919. Search in Google Scholar

33. Moher D, Shamseer L, Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Galipeau J, Avey MT, et al. Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature. 2017;549(7670):23-5. DOI: 10.1038/549023a. Search in Google Scholar

34. Clark J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ. 2015;350:h210. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h210. Search in Google Scholar

35. Careless J. Altmetrics 101: A Primer. Information Today. [Internet]. 2013;30(2). Available from: https://www.infotoday.com/it/feb13/Careless--Altmetrics-101-A-Primer.shtml. Search in Google Scholar

36. Else H. Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions. Nature. 2018;561(7721):17-8. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-06178-7. Search in Google Scholar

37. West JD, Bergstrom TC, Bergstrom CT. The Eigenfactor MetricsTM: A network approach to assessing scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries. 2010;71(3):236-44. https://doi.org/10.5860/0710236. Search in Google Scholar

38. Fersht A. The most influential journals: Impact Factor and Eigenfactor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(17):6883-4 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0903307106. Search in Google Scholar

39. Miller CS. Impact versus impact factor and Eigenfactor. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2012;113(2):P145-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.08.009. Search in Google Scholar