title: How come scientists uncritically adopt and embody Thomson's bibliographic impact factor?
abstract: The bibliographic impact factor (BIF) of Thomson Scientific is sometimes not a valid scientometric indicator for a number of reasons. One major reason is the strong influence of the number of "source items" or "articles" for each journal that the company chooses each year as BIF's denominator. The irresistible fascination with (and picturesque uses of) a construct as scientifically weak as BIF are simple reminders that scientists are embedded in and embody culture.
authors.affiliation: Institut Municipal d'Investigació Mèdica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. mporta@imim.es
authors.forename: Miquel
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Porta
authors.forename: Carlos
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Alvarez-Dardet
mesh_terms: D015706:Bibliometrics; D004813:Epidemiology; D010380:Peer Review; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000145:classification / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011643:Publishing