You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Impact Factor Fallacy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01487 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Frieder M. Paulus, Nicole Cruz, Sören Krach |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 122 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 32 | 26% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 7% |
| Chile | 6 | 5% |
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| Japan | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 3 | 2% |
| Colombia | 2 | 2% |
| Portugal | 2 | 2% |
| Peru | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 44 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 97 | 80% |
| Scientists | 20 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 2% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Professor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 27 | 30% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 119. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2023.
All research outputs
#365,419
of 26,106,397 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#757
of 34,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,572
of 345,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#25
of 731 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,106,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 731 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.