[davidshepherd7]

Just to back this up: the journal it's published in has a very very low impact factor of 0.235 (i.e. it publishes 4x more papers that it gets citations, probably most of it's papers are never cited by anyone) [1]. If this paper was considered a big a deal by the wider research community you would expect it to be published in a high profile journal.

[1]: https://journal.komci.org/ViewJournalInfo.php?JID=109#Impact...

[lachenmayer]

This sounds extremely low to me, but looking at the list of top journals sorted by Impact Factor on https://journal.komci.org/SearchJournal.php (you have to choose "Impact factor" in the "Sort results by" dropdown, as it does not generate a useful URL), the top journal only has an IF of 0.791.

I don't really know anything about the medical publishing world, but I would have expected a top journal to be cited much more?

[repsilat]

If most papers have dozens of citations, shouldn't each paper on average be cited dozens of times? Obviously with massive skew.

[jooke]

Do you know why this is the case? Is there some flaw in their methodology?

[patkai]

Good question! The scientific method does not include references to "impact factor" :)

[drostie]

I mean, it does. The "fairy tale" that one hears in high school doesn't, but we put aside fairy tales when we became adults.

If you are done with the "undergrad level" of Popper and Kuhn it is worth reading Imre Lakatos's work on philosophy of science. It contains a moment where one realizes that research programs live or die by this "impact factor" and that this living or dying is a key part of the overall methodology of science. The gist is that science is actually participating in a survival-of-the-fittest evolution with certain foundational ideas as the "genes" which "reproduce". So scientific ideas are actually good or bad in no small part due to their ability to create further scientific research along similar lines. A low impact-factor therefore directly says "along this particularly important-to-science axis, this journal sucks."

[patkai]

You are right that "the impact factor of a journal is meaningful and provides a simple/preliminary heuristic for measuring up _some_ aspects of a paper published in it" - but this is not what you wrote.

1. Imre Lakatos and maturity are great, both implying that you should not apply the aforementioned rule of thumb to an individual paper - an individual in the population - whether it was published in Nature or an insignificant contender.

2. Your memetic approach is also good, but incomplete: the objective function in case of these journals is maximizing the impact factor - so we can conclude that "PrevMed is less successful in maximizing the impact factor than some competitors, or it is a younger journal, or ..." Yes, imact factor and quality correlate in the long run, but we are not at undergrad level.

3. "A low impact-factor ... directly says" - Not directly. Also, most of the journals - not to mention conferences - do not even have an impact factor.

4. "...this journal sucks" - Most of the people writing in these kind of journals have given up a lot to contribute something modest. The editor of this journal is probably emailing with reviewers at 1am or so. Just saying...

[alex_stoddard]

But to stretch the analogy a bit further would it be fair to say that impact factor is very like sexual selection for extreme display traits that otherwise are detrimental to the wellbeing of the species?

Yes impact factor matters to current science as practiced but there is plenty of good criticism to show (at least as it is currently calculated) that it is a lousy measure of what is likely to end up being true, reproducible and useful.

[throwawayjava]

> would it be fair to say that impact factor is very like sexual selection for extreme display traits that otherwise are detrimental to the wellbeing of the species?

If I read every PoS article vaguely related to my research, I'd never get anything done. In practice, I don't pay attention to impact factor. But I do pay attention to who's publishing. And that's basically the same as impact factor, in practice.

> that it is a lousy measure of what is likely to end up being true, reproducible and useful.

I don't think so.

High impact factor publications are MUCH more likely to be quality science than low impact factor publications (at least in my area).

The major venues would have to get at least two orders of magnitude worse before they became bad indicators of quality.

Of course, and obviously, that does not entail that all work published in high impact factor journals is high-quality.

I think the fundamental problem is just that you vastly under-estimate the enormous volume of utter crap there is out there.

[afpx]

Thanks for the recommendation - I've never heard of Lakatos and have only read Popper and Kuhn. Do you have any other recommendations?

[micro_cam]

They didn't seem to do any novel work. Just cite the work of others without even doing a meta analysis of statistical significance.

[vixen99]

its papers