European Research Council bans journal impact factor from bids

For the first time prestigious funder has explicitly told academics they must not include metric when applying for grants

七月 16, 2021
Finger wagging and document illustrating ERC exclusion of JIF metrics
Source: iStock

One of the world’s most prestigious research funders has told academics that they must not include journal impact factors (JIF) in their applications, in the latest sign that the controversial metric has become discredited.

In the European Research Council’s (ERC) latest work programme, applicants are for the first time explicitly told to avoid mentioning the metric when listing their publications.

“Properly referenced, field relevant bibliometric indicators” can be used “except the journal impact factor”, states the new guidance, released on 14 July.

JIFs are based on the average number of citations that papers in the journal accrue.

But the metric has been under fire for years because, in the eyes of critics, a journal-wide score says little or nothing about a particular paper within it.

Not only can a JIF hide a wide distribution of citations between papers, but some academics have found evidence of journal editors using “trickery” to artificially inflate their scores, for example, by coercing authors into citing their journals in return for inclusion.

Despite this research and multiple declarations decrying the metric, three-quarters of European universities admitted to using it when evaluating staff performance, according to a survey in 2019.

At the same time as announcing its new work programme, the ERC also said it had officially signed up to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (Dora), a 2012 statement focused on overhauling the way research is evaluated.

Although the ERC says it was hewing to Dora guidance even before this official announcement, it states that it will take into account a “broad range of achievements” when assessing applications.

“Depending on the research area of the principal investigator and their career stage, the track record is expected to include achievements such as peer-reviewed journal publications, monographs and their translations, conference proceedings, invited presentations at major events, preprints, granted patents, and prizes and awards,” it said in a statement.

“The number of peer-reviewed publications and preprints that can be listed is limited to 10 (five for starting grant applicants),” the guidance states. “While it is expected that the publications have a significant reach, applicants are explicitly asked not to include the journal impact factor.”



  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (2)

It’s about time this dubious measurement is cast into oblivion for grant applications. I have colleagues who insist on having undergraduate students in large classes they teach read their papers in so-called high impact journals
Actually most of us (those working in academia) are aware of JIF, even if you dont state the JIF. My university only counts publications that are in the top 10% in the category (based on ISI JIF). That is not fair to those people who are not working in a big field that is often less cited and hence with low JIF. Paper publishing in so called high impact journal, do they really have greater impact to science or society, of course not really. I remember there was a paper published in Science in 200X, when I was a postgrad student, many people worked on the follow up studies based on the finding, but ended up with nothing. well... i think the whole world should ban this metrics.