Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Why impact factors don't work for taxonomy

Its long-term relevance, few specialists and lack of core journals put it outside ISI criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Krell, F.-T. Nature 405, 507–508 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Garfield, E. Nature 413, 107 (2001).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Adam, D. Nature 415, 726–729 (2002).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Köhler, F. Amateurwissenschaft: Entwicklung, Beschreibung und wissenschaftssoziologische Analyse am Beispiel der Koleopterologie p. 195 (Diploma thesis: Sociology, Univ. Köln, 1988).

  5. van der Velde, G. Nature 414, 148 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank-Thorsten Krell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krell, FT. Why impact factors don't work for taxonomy. Nature 415, 957 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/415957a

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/415957a

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing