Re: Impact Factor, Open Access & Other Statistics-Based Quality Models

[Gillikind@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/27/2004 8:21:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
J.F.Rowland@lboro.ac.uk writes:

> Impact factors (whether based on ISI databases or any other), calculated
> from citations or weblinking, and usage statistics (whther COUNTER-
> compliant or not) measure somewhat different things.
> 
> Impact factors measure the perceived usefulness of an article - someone
> thinks it is worth citing, or worth putting in a web link to.  Usage stats
> measure the fact that someone thought it was worth looking at (cursorily
> or more), perhaps a rather lower standard of usefulness.
> 
> Time will tell which of these measures is regarded as the more meaningful.  
> If both parameters could be adequately standardised, it might be
> interesting to look at the ratio between the two.  A high "impact factor
> per use" would imply that of those who looked at the paper, a large
> proportion found it useful enough to cite it.  A low "impact factor per
> use" would imply that lots of people looked at it but few cited it - the
> sort of fate that might befall one of the less impressive 
> papers from a well-know author, perhaps?

I think this discussion is overlooking one major difference between the
ideas of impact factor based on citation vs impact factor based on usage.
Citation means that one author is citing another for some reason - this is
takes some degree of 'effort' or interest and is not that easy to
manipulate.  It could be done, but manipulation would take some effort.

However, impact factor based on web usage is a very easy number to change
and influence. The location for a link to a paper on web page alone can
change the usage rate (higher placement on a web page has a greater chance
of being used, especially if the link is not below the scrolling area),
not to mention single users making multiple requests for one paper or the
vast variations of spiders/robots that could be developed.

David Gillikin