It would be great if it could be possible to import a List of journal Impact factors into Zotero so that its possible to see the Impact factor of a each article in your Zotero Library.
How exactly do you imagine this? Where would the impact factor be displayed? It sounds very much like a plugin to me, and not something that should be part of Zotero's core functionality.
I thought about an import script that compares the title of a journal of each paper in the database with a simple table containing journal names and impact factors. The only thing the script would have to do than is to add the coresponding impact factor to each paper in your database (if it finds the journal in the table)
there is a plugin on the dev list that gathers # of google scholar citations - while not perfect, that seems like a pretty good substitute. It's not quite there, yet, though, partly bc of zotero limitation: THere is no desirable field for that.
It also shows that the best way to go there is to write an independent plugin.
@sem Please spend a few moments reading about the negative side of the impact factor game -- below and elsewhere.
There are many unpleasant things to say about impact factors. The most pleasant thing I can say about the measure is that sub-specialty journals will always have lower IFs than multidiciplinary journals such as Science or Nature. "How is that pleasant?", you might ask. I didn't say that it was particularly pleasant.
While a citation count of lists of journals from Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Search, or Scopus may be freely distributed, Garfield's Impact Factor is owned by Thompson and published in Journal Citation Reports. JCR is under copyright. Journal websites commonly list their IF but lists of journal IFs are considered by Thompson to violate the user agreement for JCR. Given the work that goes into gathering the data and calculating the IFs, I understand their desire to benefit from their efforts.
I am aware of that, but:
1. This is less of an issue within a subfield. Also, you're saying impact factors are distracting, yet many people rely on them. There is nothing wrong with the idea itself.
2. It may be an opportunity for an 'open source' counter to the Impact Factor.
3. In my view, Zotero could be the platform for many more research tools than just citing (e.g. information on the impact factor, number of citations, similar articles, subdiscipline specification, ...). There are one or two plugins around for the tech savvy, but such tools and an easy installation would please a more general public.
@sem I didn't intend to say (above) that IFs are distracting. However, now that you mention it, I think that the use of IFs is distracting from the true and relative value of each journal. A comparison score has to be valid and meaningful to be useful. Much has been written about this elsewhere. Even Garfield himself began to have doubts about his IF. Given how easy it is for a publisher to manipulate IFs and the ethical consequences of those manipulations; I wish that the concept would go away. That isn't to say that I would have any objections to a Zotero plugin for the IF or the SCImago Journal Rank. I just wouldn't use it.
Upgrade Storage
It also shows that the best way to go there is to write an independent plugin.
There are many unpleasant things to say about impact factors. The most pleasant thing I can say about the measure is that sub-specialty journals will always have lower IFs than multidiciplinary journals such as Science or Nature. "How is that pleasant?", you might ask. I didn't say that it was particularly pleasant.
While a citation count of lists of journals from Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Search, or Scopus may be freely distributed, Garfield's Impact Factor is owned by Thompson and published in Journal Citation Reports. JCR is under copyright. Journal websites commonly list their IF but lists of journal IFs are considered by Thompson to violate the user agreement for JCR. Given the work that goes into gathering the data and calculating the IFs, I understand their desire to benefit from their efforts.
1. This is less of an issue within a subfield. Also, you're saying impact factors are distracting, yet many people rely on them. There is nothing wrong with the idea itself.
2. It may be an opportunity for an 'open source' counter to the Impact Factor.
3. In my view, Zotero could be the platform for many more research tools than just citing (e.g. information on the impact factor, number of citations, similar articles, subdiscipline specification, ...). There are one or two plugins around for the tech savvy, but such tools and an easy installation would please a more general public.
I didn't intend to say (above) that IFs are distracting. However, now that you mention it, I think that the use of IFs is distracting from the true and relative value of each journal. A comparison score has to be valid and meaningful to be useful. Much has been written about this elsewhere. Even Garfield himself began to have doubts about his IF. Given how easy it is for a publisher to manipulate IFs and the ethical consequences of those manipulations; I wish that the concept would go away. That isn't to say that I would have any objections to a Zotero plugin for the IF or the SCImago Journal Rank. I just wouldn't use it.
which list and journal ranking for research quality do you use in your field ? and in general ?
Amaury