At the Thomson “Citation Impact Center”, a discussion forum without it seems much discussion, there is an interview with Jim Testa, director of editorial development. The forum is free but you have to register, and there is a time lag between registering and being accepted. Here are the key points:
TS: Thomson has publicly stated many times that Impact Factor should not be used to evaluate individuals. Why do you think this practice is still prevalent?
JT: Because the Impact Factor number is so ubiquitous, so well-established and presented at the same time every year. You’d be hard-pressed to find another metric that has those attributes. It’s a real indicator of quality (though not the last word in quality), influence and importance, measured by way of citation.
TS: Does Thomson Scientific monitor for excessive self-citations?
JT: Absolutely. For Journal Citation Reports, we monitor journal self-citation rates — not just in countries where Impact Factor manipulation is more prevalent, but all across the world. And we act, when necessary. For this year’s Journal Citation Reports (2006), we suppressed data from seven journals with excessive self-citation rates.
TS: What’s next for Impact Factor?
JT: Impact Factor, I think, is here to stay. Impact Factor remains unique and one of the truest measures of overall citation impact of a journal, indicating importance and influence. It’s as simple as can be, and that’s why it’s so compelling.