@article{collective2011measuring,
  author = {Collective, Cynical Geographers},
  doi = {10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00873.x},
  interhash = {313844c34e760e283a24049a8b5d390c},
  intrahash = {311db90923f95bbc69d64978d06fb0f7},
  issn = {1467-8330},
  journal = {Antipode},
  number = 2,
  pages = {190--194},
  publisher = {Blackwell Publishing Ltd},
  title = {Measuring Impact Beyond Academic Fame: An Alternative Social Impact Factor},
  url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00873.x},
  volume = 43,
  year = 2011
}

@article{falagas2008topten,
  abstract = {A considerable part of the scientific community is, at least to some degree, involved in the “impact factor game” Editors strive to increase their journals — impact factor (IF) in order to gain influence in the fields of basic and applied research and scientists seek to profit from the “added value” of publishing in top IF journals. In this article we point out the most common “tricks” of engineering and manipulating the IF undertaken by a portion of professionals of the scientific publishing industry. They attempt to increase the nominator or decrease the denominator of the IF equation by taking advantage of certain design flaws and disadvantages of the IF that permit a degree of artificial and arbitrary inflation. Some of these practices, if not scientifically unethical, are at least questionable and should be abandoned. Editors and publishers should strive for quality through fair and thoughtful selection of papers forwarded for peer review and editorial comments that enhance the quality and scientific accuracy of a manuscript.},
  address = {Basel},
  affiliation = {Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS) 9 Neapoleos Street 151 23 Marousi, Athens Greece},
  author = {Falagas, Matthew and Alexiou, Vangelis},
  doi = {10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5},
  interhash = {8350623ff88fab4e9405805d9f5663b9},
  intrahash = {46e10496e8530bb408702d2cc58f73e8},
  issn = {0004-069X},
  issue = {4},
  journal = {Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis},
  keyword = {Biomedical and Life Sciences},
  pages = {223--226},
  publisher = {Birkhäuser},
  title = {The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation},
  url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5},
  volume = 56,
  year = 2008
}

@article{leydesdorff2012alternatives,
  abstract = {Journal Impact Factors (IFs) can be considered historically as the first attempt to normalize citation distributions by using averages over two years. However, it has been recognized that citation distributions vary among fields of science and that one needs to normalize for this. Furthermore, the mean-or any central-tendency statistics-is not a good representation of the citation distribution because these distributions are skewed. Important steps have been taken to solve these two problems during the last few years. First, one can normalize at the article level using the citing audience as the reference set. Second, one can use non-parametric statistics for testing the significance of differences among ratings. A proportion of most-highly cited papers (the top-10% or top-quartile) on the basis of fractional counting of the citations may provide an alternative to the current IF. This indicator is intuitively simple, allows for statistical testing, and accords with the state of the art. },
  author = {Leydesdorff, Loet},
  interhash = {8d14f862a94fb45d31172f8d2a6485fa},
  intrahash = {bd589cc0b6fdfc74b5eea4262c46d3a4},
  journal = {Digital Libraries},
  title = {Alternatives to the Journal Impact Factor: I3 and the Top-10% (or   Top-25%?) of the Most-Highly Cited Papers},
  url = {http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4638},
  volume = {1201.4638},
  year = 2012
}