Home > Journals > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio > Past Issues > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2025 Marzo;21(1) > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2025 Marzo;21(1):1-5

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

Publishing options
eTOC
To subscribe
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

EDITORIALE   Free accessfree

La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2025 Marzo;21(1):1-5

DOI: 10.23736/S1825-859X.24.00271-8

Copyright © 2024 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: Italian

Impact Factor, CiteScore and h-index: evaluation tools in scientific research

Nicola BIZZARO

Laboratorio di Patologia Clinica, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata, Udine, Italia



The scientific community has long relied on various metrics to evaluate the quality and impact of academic research, with the Impact Factor (IF), h-index, and CiteScore being among the most prominent. Each of these indicators has strengths, yet they are also subject to growing criticism. The IF introduced in 1975, measures the average number of citations a journal’s articles receive over a two-year period. While widely used, the IF has been criticized for its narrow time frame, and because of its focus on journals rather than individual articles, and its vulnerability to citation manipulation. It tends to favor articles that quickly gain attention, often to the detriment of long-term impactful research. The h-index, proposed in 2005, offers a more balanced approach by assessing both the productivity and impact of individual researchers. It addresses some limitations of the IF by focusing on individual contributions. However, it does not distinguish between positive and negative citations and varies across disciplines, raising concerns about its fairness. Introduced in 2016, the CiteScore extends the evaluation period to four years and includes a wider range of document types. Although it offers a broader perspective, it shares some of the IF’s limitations, as it still focuses on journals rather than individual research contributions. As no single metric provides a perfect evaluation of scientific impact, the growing consensus in the academic community is that multiple indicators should be used combining quantitative measures with qualitative assessments. The complexity of scientific research demands a more holistic approach that recognizes not only immediate citations but also the long-term value and overall quality of the research.


KEY WORDS: Journal Impact Factor; Research; Journal article

top of page