| 207 | -- | 208 | Tibor Braun. Editorial |
| 209 | -- | 0 | . Discussion Paper |
| 211 | -- | 238 | Jerome K. Vanclay. Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? |
| 239 | -- | 0 | . Comments on the Discussion Paper |
| 241 | -- | 247 | Alexandru T. Balaban. Positive and negative aspects of citation indices and journal impact factors |
| 249 | -- | 260 | Judit Bar-Ilan. Journal report card |
| 261 | -- | 0 | Judit Bar-Ilan. Erratum to: Journal report card |
| 263 | -- | 275 | Stephen J. Bensman. The impact factor: its place in Garfield's thought, in science evaluation, and in library collection management |
| 277 | -- | 279 | Lutz Bornmann, Werner Marx. The effect of several versions of one and the same manuscript published by a journal on its journal impact factor |
| 281 | -- | 292 | Gualberto Buela-Casal, Izabela Zych. What do the scientists think about the impact factor? |
| 293 | -- | 295 | Juan Miguel Campanario. Some research ideas on Journal Impact Factors as a crucial topic in science dynamics |
| 297 | -- | 311 | Gregorio González-Alcaide, Juan Carlos Valderrama Zurián, Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent. The Impact Factor in non-English-speaking countries |
| 313 | -- | 317 | James Hartley. To cite or not to cite: author self-citations and the impact factor |
| 319 | -- | 324 | Peter Ingwersen. The pragmatics of a diachronic journal impact factor |
| 325 | -- | 354 | Péter Jacsó. Grim tales about the impact factor and the h-index in the Web of Science and the Journal Citation Reports databases: reflections on Vanclay's criticism |
| 355 | -- | 365 | Loet Leydesdorff. Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers |
| 367 | -- | 376 | Henk F. Moed, Lisa Colledge, Jan Reedijk, Félix de Moya Anegón, Vicente P. Guerrero Bote, Andrew M. Plume, Mayur Amin. Citation-based metrics are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate and used in an informed way |
| 377 | -- | 390 | Rüdiger Mutz, Hans-Dieter Daniel. The generalized propensity score methodology for estimating unbiased journal impact factors |
| 391 | -- | 393 | Francis Narin. Decades of progress, or the progress of decades? |
| 395 | -- | 401 | David Pendlebury, Jonathan Adams. Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor |
| 403 | -- | 408 | Gangan Prathap. Evaluating journal performance metrics |
| 409 | -- | 412 | Alexander I. Pudovkin, Eugene Garfield. Rank normalization of impact factors will resolve Vanclay's dilemma with TRIF - Comments on the paper by Jerome Vanclay |
| 413 | -- | 417 | Ronald Rousseau. Updating the journal impact factor or total overhaul? |
| 419 | -- | 427 | Derek R. Smith. Impact factors, scientometrics and the history of citation-based research |
| 429 | -- | 441 | Mike Thelwall. Journal impact evaluation: a webometric perspective |
| 443 | -- | 455 | Thed van Leeuwen. Discussing some basic critique on Journal Impact Factors: revision of earlier comments |
| 457 | -- | 469 | Anthony F. J. van Raan. Properties of journal impact in relation to bibliometric research group performance indicators |
| 471 | -- | 483 | Peter Vinkler. The Garfield impact factor, one of the fundamental indicators in scientometrics |
| 485 | -- | 503 | Michel Zitt. The journal impact factor: angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on J.K. Vanclay's article 2011 |