English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The age-old metric associated with traditional print academic journals—the journal impact factor (JIF)—has carried over into some electronic open access journals (OA). JIF receives a fair share of criticism (e.g., easy to manipulate, relied on too much for academic promotions), but while some OA journals continue to embrace the system to validate their relevance, others are embracing new metrics, such as alternative journal impact factors (A-JIFs). This essay examines the suitability, validation, and problems with journal impact factors and alternative measures of impact and considers whether traditional metrics can continue to be a useful measure of impact. The piece concludes with the suggestion that qualitative and quantitative measures will need to be employed and perfected to ensure impact factor methods can achieve better validation. Academic librarians will need to be especially aware of all these methods as they advise their tenure-track faculty on the preferred publishing methods and metrics available to them.

Impact factors in open access: the value, frustrations, and new paths forward