Scholarly Credentials Toolkit for TCNJ Faculty: Article Impact

Navigate this libguide from the TOC below or the blue tabs (and sub-tabs) above.

Cited reference searches and reports generated by the tools listed in the Article Impact section of this guide invariably produce duplicate references or cites. Easily de-duplicate your results lists by importing them into RefWorks, an online bibliographic management tool licensed by Gitenstein Library. Most of the library's databases allow direct importing of citations into RefWorks.

Challenges and limitations of traditional citation counts/analyses, particularly when used outside of the sciences:

• Citation analyses look backward and cannot address the future impact of new or even mid-career scholars.
• Citation counts gauge impact. Rely on peer review to assess quality.
• Disciplinary context is key. Do not compare scholars across fields.
• All cites are not created equal. In any literature review one or two works typically stand out. From which of the many cited works did the citing author draw the most inspiration?
• Citation counts can be manipulated. Authors who extensively cite themselves might inflate their own impact. Editors and peer reviewers too can sometimes inflate the impact factors of the journals for which they volunteer or work. Indeed, two researchers recently uncovered disturbing patterns related to "coercive citation" practices among journal editors and even the presence in academia of "citation cartels".
• Works with low citation counts are not necessarily low impact. Infrequently cited works sometimes spur reflection among peers even when those works are not cited. In the absence of citation counts, consider Altmetrics that measure attention or usage (e.g., full-text views in a database or download counts).
• High citation counts might merely indicate that the scholar has hopped on the bandwagon of a trend. Perhaps an article with low citation counts today will nevertheless have predicted a future disciplinary turn.