  Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for
assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco
Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of
using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the
level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The
skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in
these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments
against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our
analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the
impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. Using
computer simulations, we demonstrate that under certain conditions the number
of citations an article has received is a more accurate indicator of the value
of the article than the impact factor. However, under other conditions, the
impact factor is a more accurate indicator. It is important to critically
discuss the dominant role of the impact factor in research evaluations, but the
discussion should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments. Instead, the
primary focus should be on the socio-technical implications of the use of the
impact factor.
