Understanding Impact Factor: What It Is and What It Isn’t

Few metrics generate as much discussion—and misunderstanding—in academic publishing as the Impact Factor. Journal managers field questions about it constantly. Researchers evaluate journals based on it. Yet many people misunderstand what Impact Factor actually measures, how it's calculated, and what its limitations are. This guide provides a clear explanation of Impact Factor for journal publishers and the academic community.

What is Impact Factor? #

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a metric that measures how frequently articles from a journal have been cited in a particular year. It's calculated and published annually by Clarivate Analytics (formerly Thomson Reuters) as part of Journal Citation Reports (JCR).

Impact Factor is a journal-level metric, not an article-level or author-level metric. It represents an average across all citable items in a journal, not the citation performance of any individual article.

How Impact Factor is Calculated #

The Impact Factor calculation is straightforward in principle:

Impact Factor = Citations in Year X to articles from Years (X-1) and (X-2) ÷ Citable items published in Years (X-1) and (X-2)

Example: A journal's 2024 Impact Factor would be calculated as:

• Numerator: All citations received in 2024 to articles the journal published in 2022 and 2023
• Denominator: Number of citable items (articles, reviews) the journal published in 2022 and 2023

If a journal published 100 citable items in 2022-2023, and those items received 250 citations in 2024, the Impact Factor would be 2.5.

The Web of Science Requirement #

Only journals indexed in Clarivate's Web of Science Core Collection receive Impact Factors. Journals not selected for Web of Science indexing don't have Impact Factors—regardless of how frequently their articles are cited.

Web of Science indexes approximately 21,000+ journals across sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities. This represents a small fraction of the world's scholarly journals. Many quality journals, particularly in certain disciplines or regions, aren't indexed and therefore don't have Impact Factors.

Importantly: not having an Impact Factor doesn't mean a journal lacks impact—it means the journal isn't in the specific database that calculates this particular metric.

What Impact Factor Doesn't Tell You #

Understanding Impact Factor's limitations is as important as understanding what it measures:

It's an Average, Not a Predictor #

A journal's Impact Factor doesn't predict how many citations any individual article will receive. Citation distributions within journals are heavily skewed—a small percentage of articles typically receive most citations while many receive few or none. An article in a high-Impact Factor journal might receive zero citations while an article in a lower-Impact Factor journal might become highly cited.

It Doesn't Measure Quality #

Citations reflect attention, not quality. Articles can be cited for many reasons: to build upon, to critique, to refute, or simply because they're prominent. Highly cited work isn't necessarily better than less-cited work.

It's Field-Dependent #

Citation practices vary dramatically across disciplines. Biomedical fields cite more frequently and more recently than mathematics or humanities. A mathematics journal with Impact Factor 1.0 might represent the same relative standing as a biomedical journal with Impact Factor 4.0. Cross-discipline Impact Factor comparisons are meaningless.

The Two-Year Window Has Limitations #

Impact Factor uses a two-year citation window. In fields where research takes longer to accumulate citations (humanities, mathematics, some social sciences), this window may not capture true impact. Some fields peak at 3-5 years, missing the Impact Factor window.

It Can Be Manipulated #

Practices like excessive journal self-citation, publishing disproportionate review articles (which get cited more), or coercive citation can artificially inflate Impact Factors. Clarivate monitors for manipulation and may suppress journals engaging in it.

Alternative Metrics #

Several alternative metrics address Impact Factor limitations or offer different perspectives:

CiteScore (Scopus) #

Elsevier's CiteScore uses a four-year citation window and includes all document types in both numerator and denominator, providing different coverage than Impact Factor.

SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) #

Accounts for field-specific citation practices, making cross-discipline comparisons more meaningful.

SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) #

Weights citations based on the prestige of citing journals, similar to how Google's PageRank works for websites.

h-index (for journals) #

A journal has h-index of X if X of its articles have received at least X citations. Balances productivity and citation impact.

Article-Level Metrics #

Rather than journal averages, article-level metrics assess individual articles through citation counts, downloads, and altmetrics.

DORA and the Case Against Impact Factor #

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), signed by thousands of institutions and individuals, recommends against using Impact Factor for evaluating individual researchers or their work. Key points include:

• Journal-level metrics shouldn't substitute for assessment of individual research
• Research should be evaluated on its own merits, not the journal where it appears
• Multiple metrics and qualitative assessment provide better evaluation than single numbers

Many funding agencies and institutions have adopted DORA principles, reducing (though not eliminating) Impact Factor's role in research assessment.

Impact Factor in the Indian Context #

Indian academic institutions have historically placed significant emphasis on publication in high-Impact Factor journals for faculty recruitment and promotion. UGC and various institutional policies reference Web of Science and Scopus indexing in evaluation criteria.

However, awareness is growing about Impact Factor limitations. The emphasis on international indexed journals has sometimes undervalued important research published in regional journals serving local needs. Balanced evaluation considering multiple factors—not just Impact Factor—benefits the academic ecosystem.

For Journal Publishers: Realistic Expectations #

If you publish a journal, here's realistic perspective on Impact Factor:

Indexing Comes First #

Without Web of Science indexing, Impact Factor isn't possible. Achieving indexing requires demonstrating quality through publication practices, editorial standards, and track record—typically over years, not months.

Focus on Quality, Not the Number #

Chasing Impact Factor leads to questionable decisions—rejecting sound research because it won't get cited, favoring trendy topics over important ones, or engaging in manipulation. Quality publishing practices build sustainable reputation.

Other Metrics Matter #

DOAJ indexing, Scopus inclusion, CiteScore, discipline-specific database coverage—these provide recognition independent of Web of Science. Many authors value these alternatives.

Discoverability Precedes Citation #

Articles must be found before being cited. Open access, good metadata, DOIs, Google Scholar optimization, and social media visibility support discoverability regardless of Impact Factor.

Common Misconceptions #

"Higher Impact Factor means better journal." Not necessarily. Impact Factor measures citation frequency, which reflects field norms and article types more than quality.

"My journal needs an Impact Factor to be legitimate." Many respected journals lack Impact Factors. Quality, rigor, and appropriate indexing matter more than one specific metric.

"Impact Factor measures my article's value." Impact Factor is a journal average with no bearing on individual articles. Your highly cited article contributes to Impact Factor; Impact Factor doesn't describe your article.

"We can quickly get a high Impact Factor." Impact Factors develop over years of consistent quality publishing. Quick schemes typically involve manipulation that leads to problems.