Abstract
Evaluating quality of articles and scientific journals. Proposal of weighted impact factor and a quality index? The factor of impact and other bibliometric indices are currently used in several countries to evaluate the type and quality of scientific production. However, the impact factor (or prestige) rarely receives an accurate interpretation. Available impact factors display a number of shortcomings: they only refer to citations in the previous two or three years, and they do not take into account the impact or prestige of the periodicals where citations appear, so that every citation is given the same value, regardless of the periodical where it appears. In order to overcome these limitations, two indices are proposed: a mean impact factor of the journals where citations appear (FIMRC) and a weighted impact factor (FIP). Additionally, other useful indices are suggested for the analysis of interaction between periodicals: a percentage of partial interaction of citations (PIPC), and a percentage of mutual interaction among citations (PIMC). This paper explains their details a procedures for their calculation. Several problem areas are discussed, namely, peer review, the policy of publications, qualification of referees, and assessment criteria. It is also argued that quality of studies should not only be primarily evaluated in terms of the periodical where they are published. Finally, an alternative is offered for the assessment of quality of scientific articles and journals on three bases: what is to be evaluated, who is to be an evaluator, and possible criteria for evaluation. These considerations lead to a proposal for a quality index aside of impact or prestige.
