One of the earliest concepts related to citation indexes (impact factor-IF) was proposed by Eugene Garfield in 1955. Although the first scientific journals (Journal des Sciences and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London) began publication in France and England in 1665, the idea that scientific journals vary in quality was first articulated by Bradford in 1934. The use of the h-index and journal Q-values began long after the adoption of the IF; however, all three analytical sources are interrelated in terms of citation metrics and are widely used today. However, the use of these analytical sources has always been a subject of debate due to various limitations. While it's impossible to completely abandon these analytical resources, their use can be restricted, particularly in academic appointments, promotions, awarding prizes, etc., and their use as the sole criterion can be reduced. One of the most important criteria to consider should be quality, and this quality measure should be used in conjunction with these analytical resources, with evaluations conducted accordingly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: