Jump to content

Talk:Citation impact

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DGG (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 27 September 2006 (consensus on NOT merging.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Don't merge

  • No, "citation impact" should not be merged with the "Impact Factor" article - citation impact is different from (broader than) Impact Factor. Impact Factor = Journal Impact Factor (JIF), i.e. a measure on the "journal level". Citation impact can be much broader and can for example be the impact of a particular article or researcher, which is different from the JUF ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.213.235 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above: the Journal Impact Factor is the average citation count for a journal, but individual articles and authors have citation counts too, and so do works other than journal articles, such as books. Merging citation impact with the journal impact factor would be merging a sharper instrument (individual citation counts) with a duller instrument (average citation counts). Moreover there are journal-specific controversies about the journal impact factor that are irrelevant to individual citation counts, and should not be allowed to merge with or submerge them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not think the two should be merged. I might not have found the information I was looking for, on this page, if "citation" wasn't in the title. "Impact factor" isn't enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.113.151 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also Agree, Journal Impact Factors or JIF's are something that ISI thompson have adopted and are unique and should remain sepeate from citation impact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.113.32 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Impact Factors are specific, having an exact definition. They have been analyzed in detail in many published works, and the discussion of them should be kept separate. "Citation impact" is a much vaguer term. In addition, the definition given in this article (average citations per article) is not correct, as a comparison with the true article on impact factors will show. Keep them apart. — DGG 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is consensus from all sides. DGG 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citation_impact&oldid=78174250"