Editing Impact factor (section)

==Institutional responses to criticism of the impact factor==
Given the growing criticism and its widespread usage as a means of research assessment, organisations and institutions have begun to take steps to move away from the journal impact factor. In November 2007 the [[European Association of Science Editors]] (EASE) issued an official statement recommending "that journal impact factors are used only—and cautiously—for measuring and comparing the influence of entire journals, but not for the assessment of single papers, and certainly not for the assessment of researchers or research programmes".<ref name="EASE"/>

In July 2008, the [[International Council for Science]] Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science issued a "statement on publication practices and indices and the role of [[peer review]] in research assessment", suggesting many possible solutions—e.g., considering a limit number of publications per year to be taken into consideration for each scientist, or even penalising scientists for an excessive number of publications per year—e.g., more than 20.<ref name="test">{{cite web |url=http://www.icsu.org/publications/cfrs-statements/publication-practices-peer-review/statement-publication-practices-and-indices-and-the-role-of-peer-review-in-research-assessment-july-2008 |title=International Council for Science statement |publisher=Icsu.org |date=2014-05-02 |access-date=2014-05-18 |archive-date=26 April 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170426023939/http://www.icsu.org/publications/cfrs-statements/publication-practices-peer-review/statement-publication-practices-and-indices-and-the-role-of-peer-review-in-research-assessment-july-2008 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In February 2010, the [[Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft]] (German Research Foundation) published new guidelines to reduce the number of publications that could be submitted when applying for funding: "The focus has not been on what research someone has done but rather how many papers have been published and where." They noted that for decisions concerning "performance-based funding allocations, postdoctoral qualifications, appointments, or reviewing funding proposals, [where] increasing importance has been given to numerical indicators such as the [[h-index]] and the impact factor".<ref>{{cite web |date=23 February 2010 |title=Quality not Quantity: DFG Adopts Rules to Counter the Flood of Publications in Research |url=https://www.dfg.de/en/service/press/press_releases/2010/pressemitteilung_nr_07/index.html |publisher=Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft |access-date=2018-07-16}}</ref> The UK's [[Research Assessment Exercise]] for 2014 also banned the journal impact factor<ref>{{Cite news |date=2013-02-08 |title=Departmental H-Index is a more transparent, fair and cost-effective method for distributing funding to universities. |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/02/08/impact-factors-and-an-alternative-to-ref-2014/ |access-date=2021-08-14 |website=Impact of Social Sciences}}</ref> although evidence suggested that this ban was often ignored.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2012-11-30 |title=Business as usual in judging the worth of a researcher? |url=http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2012/nov/30/1 |access-date=2021-08-14 |website=The Guardian}}</ref>

In response to growing concerns over the inappropriate use of journal impact factors in evaluating scientific outputs and scientists themselves, the [[American society for cell biology|American Society for Cell Biology]] together with a group of editors and publishers of scholarly journals created the [[San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment]] (DORA). Released in May 2013, DORA has garnered support from thousands of individuals and hundreds of institutions,<ref name=Cabello/> including in March 2015 the League of European Research Universities (a consortium of 21 of the most renowned research universities in Europe),<ref>{{cite web |date=16 March 2015 |title=Not everything that can be counted counts … |publisher=League of European Research Universities |url=http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/news/not-everything-that-can-be-counted-counts- |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201035305/http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/news/not-everything-that-can-be-counted-counts- |archive-date=2017-12-01}}</ref> who have endorsed the document on the DORA website.

Publishers, even those with high impact factors, also recognised the flaws.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Callaway |first=Ewen |date=July 2016 |title=Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric |doi-access=free |journal=Nature |volume=535 |issue=7611 |pages=210–211 |doi=10.1038/nature.2016.20224 |pmid=27411614 |bibcode=2016Natur.535..210C |s2cid=4452614 |issn=0028-0836}}</ref> ''Nature'' magazine criticised the over-reliance on JIF, pointing not just to its statistical flaws but to negative effects on science: "The resulting pressures and disappointments are nothing but demoralizing, and in badly run labs can encourage sloppy research that, for example, fails to test assumptions thoroughly or to take all the data into account before submitting big claims."<ref name="Time to"/> Various publishers now use a mixture of metrics on their website; the PLOS series of journals does not display the impact factor.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Journal Information |url=https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information |access-date=2021-08-14 |website=PLOS ONE}}</ref> Microsoft Academic took a similar view, stating that h-index, EI/SCI and journal impact factors are not shown because "the research literature has provided abundant evidence that these metrics are at best a rough approximation of research impact and scholarly influence."<ref>{{Cite web |title=FAQ |url=https://academic.microsoft.com/faq |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170105184616/https://academic.microsoft.com/FAQ |archive-date=5 January 2017 |url-status=dead |access-date=2020-12-15 |website=Microsoft Academic }}</ref>

In 2021, [[Utrecht University]] promised to abandon all quantitative bibliometrics, including the impact factor. The university stated that "it has become a very sick model that goes beyond what is really relevant for science and putting science forward".<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Woolston C |title=Impact factor abandoned by Dutch university in hiring and promotion decisions |journal=Nature |volume=595 |issue=7867 |pages=462 |date=July 2021 |pmid=34172959 |doi=10.1038/d41586-021-01759-5 |bibcode=2021Natur.595..462W|s2cid=235647170 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Recognition and rewards {{!}} Universiteit Utrecht |url=https://www.uu.nl/en/research/open-science/tracks/recognition-and-rewards |access-date=2021-07-19 |website=www.uu.nl}}</ref> This followed a 2018 decision by the main Dutch funding body for research, [[Dutch Research Council|NWO]], to remove all references to journal impact factors and the h-index in all call texts and application forms.<ref>{{Cite web |title=DORA {{!}} NWO |url=https://www.nwo.nl/en/dora |access-date=2021-07-21 |website=www.nwo.nl}}</ref> Utrecht's decision met with some resistance. An open letter signed by over 150 Dutch academics argued that, while imperfect, the JIF is still useful, and that omitting it "will lead to randomness and a compromising of scientific quality".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Scientists at odds on Utrecht University reforms to hiring and promotion criteria |url=https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/scientists-argue-over-use-of-impact-factors-for-evaluating-research |access-date=2021-08-14 |website=www.natureindex.com|date=9 August 2021 }}</ref>