Abstract
Little attention has been devoted to whether the impact factor (IF) can be considered a responsible metric in light of bibliodiversity. This article critically engages with this question in measuring the following variables of IF journals included in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports™ and examining their distribution: publishing models (hybrid, open access (OA) with or without fees, subscription), world regions, language(s) of publication, subject categories, publishers and the prices of article processing charges (APCs) if any. Our results show that the quest for prestige or perceived quality through the IF brand poses serious threats to bibliodiversity. The IF brand can indeed hardly be considered a responsible metric insofar as it perpetuates publishing concentration, maintains a domination of the Global North and its attendant artificial image of mega producer of scholarly content, does not promote linguistic diversity, and does not incentivize fair and equitable open access by entrenching fee-based OA delivery options with rather high APCs.