本文說明影響指數的計偵二方式，理論假設和引發的爭議，例如影響指數的有效性，並闡述學術評鑑可能的幾項其他方案。臺灣近年來在學術評鑑上的趨勢是，以出版品是否刊載在SCI，SSCI等資料庫收錄的期刊，來衡量學者及一學門的學術成就和貢獻。圖書館員也將影響指數視為期刊品質的評估判準，並作為圖書館購買不同學門之期刊經費分配的依據。「被量化」的學術評鑑方法，就影響指數而言是有很大瑕疵的。因此，有結論呼籲，主管教育的政府或研究機構，及學術界應量，以影響指數做為評估期刊品質優劣的適當性，及可能被誤用的情況，沒有批判性的應用，其實是不妥當的。而且，國外愈來愈多的學術社群已放棄使用這樣的評鑑指標，主管學術評鑑單位是否也可以考量國外的新作法及改善方式，重新設計新的評鑑方式，學者也較能心服口服。

This paper challenges the method of calculating the impact factor and the idea that the reputation of the journal is valid. The disputes caused by calculating the impact factor are also discussed, for example, the author of this paper examines some other possible ways of substitution for academic research evaluation. The trend of academic research evaluation is based on the impact factors of the journals which published the research articles; however, the quantitative measure of research has many flaws. Having concluded that the impact factor is an imperfect factor, the author of this paper hopes that the government or research institution will regard the appropriateness of assessing the quality of the periodicals and whether the scientists contribute to academic progress or not. More foreign academic communities have already given up using the impact factor formula and have redesigned new evaluation standards. In Taiwan, we should critically evaluate the quality of each individual article. A further concern, since evaluation and measurement cannot be completely abandoned, is how the government and academic community and will agree on the standards and criteria to be used.