Abstracts
Résumé
Le facteur d’impact, établi par l’Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), est fréquemment utilisé pour évaluer les chercheurs et leurs programmes. Sur la base d’exemples, cet article propose quelques clés pour analyser les conditions et les limites d’interprétation d’indicateurs qui, à l’origine, n’ont pas été conçus pour l’évaluation individuelle. Il présente aussi les conséquences prévisibles des nouvelles technologies d’information, en particulier l’avènement de journaux électroniques, sur la production, la publication et l’évaluation des résultats de la recherche dans les sciences biomédicales.
Summary
The impact factor of scientific reviews, calculated by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), is increasingly used to evaluate the performance of scientists and programmes. Bibliometric indicators, originally designed for other purposes than individual evaluation, are very useful tools provided their interpretation is not extrapolated beyond their limits of validity. Here we present a critical analysis of appropriate uses and misuses of bibliometric data based on case studies. We also outline anticipated consequences of new information technologies, such as electronic journals or open access schemes, on the mode of science production, evaluation and dissemination in biomedical sciences.
Appendices
Références
- 1. Marshall BJ, Warren JR. Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic-ulceration. Lancet 1984 ; 1 : 1311-5.
- 2. Marshall BJ, Armstrong JA, McGechie DB, Glancy RJ. Attempt to fulfill Koch postulates for pyloric Campylobacter. Med J Aust 1985 ; 142 : 436-9.
- 3. Jacso PA. Deficiency in the algorithm for calculating the impact factor of scholarly journals : The journal impact factor. Cortex 2001 ; 37 : 590-4.
- 4. Amin M, Mabe M. Impact factors : use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing(newsletter for journal editors, Elsevier Science) 2000 ; 1 : 1-6 (http://www.elsevier.nl/homepage/about/ita/editors/perspectives1.pdf).
- 5. Garfield E. The impact factor and using it correctly. Unfallchirurg 1998 ; 101 : 413-4.
- 6. Lewison G. Researchers’ and users’ perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals. Scientometrics 2002 ; 53 : 229-40.
- 7. Lawrence PA. The politics of publication. Authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research. Nature 2003 ; 422 : 259-61.
- 8. Garfield E. Evaluating research. Do bibliometric indicators provide the best measures. Introduction to a review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation (reprinted). Current Contents 1989 ; 14 : 3-10.
- 9. Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved ? Br Med J 1996 ; 313 : 411-3.
- 10. Lawrence S. Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature 2001 ; 411 : 521.
- 11. Anderson K, Sack J, Krauss L, O’Keefe L. Publishing online-only peer-reviewed biomedical literature : three years of citation, author perception, and usage experience. J Electronic Publishing 2001 ; 6 (http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-03/ anderson.html).
- 12. Burke J. Connections. Boston : Little Brown and Company, 1995.
- 13. Gardin JC. The logicist analysis of explanatory theories in archaeology. In : Franck R, ed. The explanatory power of models. Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002 : 267-84.