  The Eigenfactor Metrics provide an alternative way of evaluating scholarly
journals based on an iterative ranking procedure analogous to Google's PageRank
algorithm. These metrics have recently been adopted by Thomson-Reuters and are
listed alongside the Impact Factor in the Journal Citation Reports. But do
these metrics differ sufficiently so as to be a useful addition to the
bibliometric toolbox? Davis (2008) has argued otherwise, based on his finding
of a 0.95 correlation coefficient between Eigenfactor score and Total Citations
for a sample of journals in the field of medicine. This conclusion is mistaken;
here we illustrate the basic statistical fallacy to which Davis succumbed. We
provide a complete analysis of the 2006 Journal Citation Reports and
demonstrate that there are statistically and economically significant
differences between the information provided by the Eigenfactor Metrics and
that provided by Impact Factor and Total Citations.
