The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“However, today, JIF is often misused due to a misinterpretation of its meaning, as it has become a standard tool in virtually all evaluation practices at all levels, usually without proper considerations of the rationale for its use [2,44,222,224-227].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [226]
In the citing paper
“in 2016, the American Society of Microbiology (ASM) declared that JIFs will no longer be posted to the ASM journal websites or used in advertising [226].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [226]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Lariviere, V. et al. Preprint at http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/05/062109 (2016).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World
Pranckutė, R. (2021) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications9010012 · Cited by 2,696
Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017) · Environmental Engineering Science · doi:10.1089/ees.2016.0223 · Cited by 688
Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart's Law in action
Fire, M., & Guestrin, C. (2019) · GigaScience · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giz053 · Cited by 351
Dechartres, A., Trinquart, L., Atal, I., Moher, D., Dickersin, K., Boutron, I., Perrodeau, E., Altman, D. G., & Ravaud, P. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j2490 · Cited by 171
Goyanes, M., & Demeter, M. (2020) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699020904169 · Cited by 107
Metadata
- Authors
- Callaway, E.
- Corresponding author
- Callaway, Ewen
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2016-07-08
- Volume
- 535
- Issue
- 7611
- Pages
- 210-211
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2473748898
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 9
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- impact factor, journal impact factor, scholarly publishing, research evaluation, scientific journals, journal editors, bibliometric analysis
- MeSH terms
- Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Journal Impact Factor
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
