Journal impact factor: expired prescription for academics research output

The purpose of this study was to gather lectures’ views on the use of the journal impact factor to assess the quality of their research for tenure and promotion. The study was motivated by a university’ promotion policy which required journal impact factor for lecturer research quality assessment in 2014 when its initial originator (Garfield, 1968) denounced its application for the assessment of journal quality and research. The study was guided by qualitative research methodologies. Data were collected by a desk research survey of literature for ideal journal impact factor uses. This was followed by a survey in which 147 lecturers from two universities responded to a self-reporting questionnaire. Focus group Discussions were held with lecturers to clarify issues raised from questionnaires and to capture group perceptions. Literature revealed that journal impact factor is a numerical value (mean) of journal's citations in two years. The use of the mean when calculating the journal impact factor is mathematically inappropriate and unreliable measure of research quality. Literature recommended the confinement of journal impact factor to its original use of identifying popular journals for librarians’ decisions. Surveys revealed that the majority (87%) of participants considered it as a wrong instrument for assessing the quality of their research. Respondents considered the introduction of journal impact factor as a gate keeping strategy applied by university promotions committee. Publishing in journals with high impact factors compelled them to resort to external journals while starving local journals of quality research papers. It was expensive for them and increased the externalization of foreign currency. This study recommends that, journal impact factor is an expired prescription for lecturer research output. It should be called journal visibility factor and not impact factor and not be used for assessing research quality because citation frequency is not a quality indicator. The implication of these findings is that, the university should suspend the use of journal impact factor to save foreign currency, promote local journals and focus researchers on solving local problems.