title: Reliability of journal impact factor rankings.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Journal impact factors and their ranks are used widely by journals, researchers, and research assessment exercises.
  
  
  METHODS
  Based on citations to journals in research and experimental medicine in 2005, Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to estimate the uncertainty associated with these journal performance indicators.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Intervals representing plausible ranges of values for journal impact factor ranks indicated that most journals cannot be ranked with great precision. Only the top and bottom few journals could place any confidence in their rank position. Intervals were wider and overlapping for most journals.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Decisions placed on journal impact factors are potentially misleading where the uncertainty associated with the measure is ignored. This article proposes that caution should be exercised in the interpretation of journal impact factors and their ranks, and specifically that a measure of uncertainty should be routinely presented alongside the point estimate.
authors.affiliation: Biostatistics Unit, Centre for Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. d.c.greenwood@leeds.ac.uk
authors.forename: Darren C
authors.initials: DC
authors.lastname: Greenwood
mesh_terms: D015706:Bibliometrics; D035843:Biomedical Research; D006801:Humans; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011336:Probability; D015203:Reproducibility of Results