Significance of impact factor

The best news ever, in my opinion, came in unexpectedly from from Quora forum regarding this issue. Someone asked “What is the significance of the impact factor?” and a very interesting answer came in from W.Gunn:

It has little significance anymore, except among those who haven’t been paying attention for the past 10 years or so. There  is international consensus by bibliometricians on the idea that the IF  should not be used by researchers. Please read the Leiden Manifesto Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics and the Declaration on Research Assessment San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)

The  best thing to do, if you’re looking for a journal in which to publish,  is to ask an academic librarian in your field of study. You can also ask  a senior colleague which are the respected journals in the field, but  if they start talking about Impact Factor, give them a copy of the above  referenced materials and go ask someone else.

Even the countries which used to include IF in assessment exercises which determine grant allocation are now moving away from using the metric.

I hope it will change the picture very soon!

ZTPI across cultures project: FAQ

I am happy with the response rate to our second call for collaborators to our joint research project on time perspective!

We hope to be joined by:

Shanmukh Kamble – India

Elizabeth Temple – Australia

Elena Mitu – Romania

Boštjan Bajec, Mojca Pavsic  – Slovenia

Maria Chayinskaya – Italy

Tim Nestik – Russia

Anna Karcz – Poland

Paulo Dias – Portugal

Gábor Orosz – Hungary

Cristián Oyanadel – Chile

Kiyoshi Takahashi – Japan

Yu-Jing Gao – ROC

Aleksandrs Kolesovs – Latvia

Oksana Senyk – Ukraine

Daiva Daukantaite – Sweden

Jameson K. Hirsch – USA

Jinkook Tak – Korea


Here I would like to summarize questions that have been reoccurring.

Addressing the concerns arising from the people involved in the first stage that was launched in 2009:

This is a continuation of our initial project and you don’t need to submit your data once again. According to our agreement we aim to report results of the study in 3 publications. Currently we have submitted the first one, so there are two more to go.

Future Negative scale:

If you have validated the Future Negative scale (developed by Grazia Carelli, Britt Wiberg and Marie Wiberg at Umea University, Sweden) and used it in your research you’re welcome to submit it as well. Please create a separate XLS file for this particular scale. It is not yet available in all languages, but it’s coming. I think we’ll report the cross-cultural results for this scale where it will be possible.

Some more info for the newcomers:

The projects aims to collect the data into collaborative project from those who already have the data (usually from the country validation study). We aim to produce two more articles with this initiative.

The sample we are interested in should include at least 200 participants aged 18+. Online collection is fine.

The deadline for submitting your data – 31.12.2012.

Data should be in the format according to our instructions (contact me if you haven’t received the templates) and should be accompanied by:

1) file with your country keying

2) your country ZTPI version and it’s back translation into English

3) Information file

Please include a publication (if any) that reports the adaptation of your country version. If you do not have a publication yet, please provide us with the basic info on the validation study including with procedure you used when developing the scale in your language (translation-back translation / bilingual committee approach / etc.).

Addressing those who are in the process of reporting your validation results and a reoccurring question on the following paragraph in the Agreement:

“The following publications by participants, based on the dataset mentioned at article 2, are allowed only after the realization of these three central publications, which is assessed by the formal acceptance of submitted manuscripts by the journal“.

The indication “based on the dataset mentioned at article 2″ is important. It means that agreement regulates only the using of the full dataset, and that the only cross-cultural comparisons forbidden by the agreement before the 3 main publications are those based on the full dataset (gathering all data provided internationally), and those using sample from this dataset not collected directly and without authors permission.

So, you are absolutly free to use your own sample as you want, and to collect by yourself other data to perform your own cross-cultural comparisons (what can be really interesting and useful to further our understanding of cultural dimension of TP). The objective of the agreement is to forbid unfair use of the full dataset, given that contributors shared their data with us for a particular and identified purpose. We don’t want someone who had access to the data to use it for personal publications. It is a way to protect data, not to restrict scientific  liberty and autonomy for contributors. This agreement is a bit harsh to ensure for clarity and fairness.

I hope I covered most of the questions! I will be posting more info on the project while it will be developing. Please keep an eye on this page for now (our website is still being recovered). You can also follow me and advancements of the project on LinkedIn, ResearchGate or Academia.