Abstract:Three recent publications have let the cat out of the bag. They are "Stop Congratulating Colleagues for Publishing in High Impact-Factor Journals," "Who are the real parasite publishers and journals? What prevents all medical data from being open access in real time?" and "Against Parasite Publishers: Making Journals Free."[1] [2] [3] For long impact factor (IF) has ruled the academic publishing world. It has expanded its sphere of influence on career progress, appointments in academic institutions, promotion reviews, and grant applications. IF is popular since 1975 and is based on the number of citations that the journal received in the previous 2 years. For instance, if our article is published in the year 2022, the IF that the journal in which our article is published will be decided on the citations received by the journal in the years 2020 and 2021. Authors are cognizant of the significance of IF because journals with higher IF are considered as respectable, their review process is supposed to be selective, there is greater scrutiny of articles submitted, and if published, the authors are considered worthy by their peers. Publications in journals with high IF also cascade into wider publicity through reporting by science journals and social media. They also have a higher chance of being included in reports on new publications. As the definition suggests, there is also a higher chance of being cited by other scientists working in the field. However, IF has a very important flaw. All the metrics are related to the journal. There is no evaluation of the individual publication or the author who has done the research work. Therefore, having a publication in a high IF journal does not guarantee that your work will be cited. In fact, more than two-thirds of publications in such journals have fewer citations than the IF of the journal.[4] By experience, we have found that using the right keywords does wonders to online access. When the research work is great, those interested in the subject can easily find it on the net. Searchable databases such as Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science make this possible. There are also niche areas in science and medicine, where journals with high IF simply do not exist. The research communities in such fields are small and usually know each other well. So, they tend to find work of colleagues online even if published in journals with IF of 3 or 4. As journals with high IF are in "great demand," their review process is time consuming and ultimately most of the work submitted does not get accepted. In the process, our data may become redundant in today's exponentially progressive research environment. Can we afford to face this? The final stumbling block is that if such journals are open access, they command a high premium in terms of publication "processing fees." For instance, last year, Nature announced a princely sum of Euro 9,500 as their charges if the authors wanted their article to have open access. Clearly, this is an elitist attitude where rich publishing houses want to get richer at the cost of dissemination of information. This has a major health care implication. Work from low- and medium-income countries (LMIC) will not be published in such journals. Or the work will be behind a paywall that the LMIC colleagues cannot surmount.[5] No wonder global citation inequality is increasing. Data between 2000 and 2015 encompassing 1 million authors and 26 million scientific publications show interesting confirmation of the same.[6] Citations have increased from 14 to 21% only for the tip 1% of most cited researchers. The increasing trend was most prominent in the Netherland, Denmark, Australia, and United Kingdom. Interestingly, it showed a decline in the United States and China. IF has actually become so frustrating and misleading that many grant providers have started ignoring any reference to it. The European Research Council has taken a step further by banning mention of journal IF from all grant proposals and bids submitted to them.[7] So, the question that begs an answer is, what are the alternative metrics that we can use and which of them is the most likely to replace IF? SCImago Journal and Country Rank, Eigenfactor Metrics, and Science Gateway need mention only to say that they exist but pale in comparison to IF. In 2005, Hirsch published another metric to evaluate the scientific research output of individual scientists and researchers.[8] This was labeled as the H index factor. It is based on two data points. One is the number of journal articles the author has published. The other is the number of citations received by those articles (of the same author). An example from publications from one of us shows that number of total citations as 12,103 and the H index as 34, as calculated using Google Scholar.[9] Let us take another example. Charles -Abstract Truncated-

hglobal-index: a novel author-level measure of the diffusion of scientific ideas among high-, low-, and middle-income countries

Part II: Should the h-index be modified? An analysis of the m-quotient, contemporary h-index, authorship value, and impact factor

Evaluating Scholars’ Impact and Influence: Cross-sectional Study of the Correlation Between a Novel Social Media–Based Score and an Author-Level Citation Metric

Comparison of the h index with standard bibliometric indicators to rank influential otolaryngologists in Europe and North America

Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks

The i100-index, i1000-index and i10,000-index: expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher classification

The Pagerank-Index: Going beyond Citation Counts in Quantifying Scientific Impact of Researchers

Quantitative analysis of automatic performance evaluation systems based on the h-index

Using ISI's 'Highly Cited Researchers' to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence

Is the h-Index Enough? A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of 871 Academic Plastic Surgeons and Their Departments/Divisions

GK index: bridging Gf and K indices for comprehensive author evaluation

Technology and Innovation Has Made Impact Factor Redundant—Better Alternatives Are Here to Thrive

Robust h-index

Evaluation of h-index and its qualitative and quantitative variants in Neuroscience

A new parameter for (normalized) evaluation of H-index: countries as a case study

High-Cited Papers in Covid-19: A Scientometric Assessment of Global Literature Using Essential Science Indicators Database

The Relative Citation Ratio: Evaluating a New Measure of Scientific Influence Among Academic Sports Medicine Surgeons

Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index

h-index and its alternative: A Review

Geographic, Subject, and Authorship Trends among LMIC-based Scientific Publications in High-impact Global Health and General Medicine Journals: A 30-Month Bibliometric Analysis

Central indexes to the citation distribution: A complement to the h-index