Free-Riding on Power Laws: questioning the validity of the Impact Factor as a measure of research quality in organization studies
Open accessAbstract
The simplicity and apparent objectivity of the Institute for Scientific Information’s Impact Factor has resulted in its widespread use to assess the quality of organization studies journals and by extension the impact of the articles they publish and the achievements of their authors. After describing how such uses of the Impact Factor can distort both researcher and editorial behavior to the detriment of the field, I show how extreme variability in article citedness permits the vast majority of articles— and journals themselves—to free-ride on a small number of highly-cited articles. I conclude that the Impact Factor has little credibility as a proxy for the quality of either organization studies journals or the articles they publish, resulting in attributions of journal or article quality that are incorrect as much or more than half the time. The clear implication is that we need to cease our reliance on such a non-scientific, quantitative characterization to evaluate the quality of our work.
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
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research
Seglen, P. O. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497 · Cited by 2,447 · see citing works
Baldi, S. (1998) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657504 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
POWER LAW RELATIONS IN SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY—A SELF‐CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION
NARANAN, S. (1971) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/eb026510 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Who games metrics and rankings? Institutional niches and journal impact factor inflation
Siler, K., & Larivière, V. (2022) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2022.104608 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Dobusch, L., & Heimstädt, M. (2024) · Philosophy & Social Criticism · doi:10.1177/01914537231203558 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“Over time, more corpora were added from existing collections, via automated downloads from publishers ’ websites or through leaks from university networks (Bodó 2018) In 2014, the total corpus already included about 25 million documents (Cabanac 2016).”
Background
- Authors
- Baum, J. A. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Baum, Joel A. C.
- ORCID
- Baum, Joel A. C.
- Venue
- Organization
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 449-466
- ISSN
- 1350-5084 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7323
- OpenAlex
- W2101597439
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 17.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- autopapers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Organization (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- impact factor, citation analysis, power law, free-riding, research quality assessment, journal evaluation, highly cited papers, researcher incentives
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