Abstract
► Journal impact factors are defined in the essay. ► Journal impact factors are conceptually differentiated from intellectual influence on other scholars’ work. ► Two journals with different impact factors are content analyzed. ► Findings were that journal impact factor was not indicative of the influence work published had on theoretical or methodological advancement. ► Implications are that scholars’ work should not be evaluated on the basis of the impact factors for the journals in which it is published.
Journal impact factors typically rely on the number of citations to a journal as well as the number of citable items published in the journal during specific time parameters. If journal impact factors accurately differentiate journals along a quality continuum, journals with higher impact factors should be referenced more often than journals with lower impact factors as sources of influence on scholars’ conceptual and methodological approaches to inquiry. To investigate this claim, a sample consisting of all twelve issues of Human Communication Research (HCR) and Communication Monographs (CM) published from 2007 through 2009 were content analyzed and every citation to either journal in the articles appearing in HCR and CM was coded. Results indicated that, despite higher impact factors for HCR, there were not more citations to HCR than CM as sources of conceptual or methodological influence appearing in articles appearing in HCR or CM.
