Search

Citing of previous publications is an important factor in knowledge development. Because of the great amount of publications available, only a selection of studies gets cited, for varying reasons. If the selection of citations is associated with study outcome this is called citation bias. We will study determinants of citation in a broader sense, including e.g. study design, journal impact factor or the funding source of the publication. As a case study we assess which factors drive citation in the human literature on phthalates, specifically the metabolite mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP). A systematic literature search identified all relevant publications on human health effect of MEHP. Data on potential determinants of citation were extracted in duplo. Specialized software was used to create a citation network, including all potential citation pathways. Random effect logistic regression was used to assess whether these determinants influence the likelihood of citation. 112 Publications on MEHP were identified, with 5684 potential citation pathways of which 551 were actual citations. Reporting of a harmful point estimate, journal impact factor, authority of the author, a male corresponding author, research performed in North America and self-citation were positively associated with the likelihood of being cited. In the literature on MEHP, citation is mostly driven by a number of factors that are not related to study outcome. Although the identified determinants do not necessarily give strong indications of bias, it shows selective use of published literature for a variety of reasons.

The number of articles published in open access journals (OAJs) has increased dramatically in recent years. Simultaneously, the quality of publications in these journals has been called into question. Few studies have explored the retraction rate from OAJs. The purpose of the current study was to determine the reasons for retractions of articles from OAJs in biomedical research. The Medline database was searched through PubMed to identify retracted publications in OAJs. The journals were identified by the Directory of Open Access Journals. Data were extracted from each retracted article, including the time from publication to retraction, causes, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Trends in the characteristics related to retraction were determined. Data from 621 retracted studies were included in the analysis. The number and rate of retractions have increased since 2010. The most common reasons for retraction are errors (148), plagiarism (142), duplicate publication (101), fraud/suspected fraud (98) and invalid peer review (93). The number of retracted articles from OAJs has been steadily increasing. Misconduct was the primary reason for retraction. The majority of retracted articles were from journals with low impact factors and authored by researchers from China, India, Iran, and the USA.

This opinion paper takes aim at an error made recently by Clarivate Analytics in which it sent out an email that congratulated academics for becoming exclusive members of academia's most cited elite, the Highly Cited Researchers (HCRs). However, that email was sent out to an undisclosed number of non-HCRs, who were offered an apology shortly after, through a bulk mail, which tried to down-play the importance of the error, all the while praising the true HCRs. When Clarivate Analytics senior management was contacted, the company declined to offer an indication of the number of academics who had been contacted and erroneously awarded the HCR status. We believe that this regrettable blunder, together with the opacity offered by the company, fortify the corporate attitude about the value of the journal impact factor (JIF), and what it represents, namely a marketing tool that is falsely used to equate citations with quality, worth, or influence. The continued commercialization of metrics such as the JIF is at the heart of their use to assess the "quality" of a researcher, their work, or a journal, and contributes to a great extent to driving scientific activities towards a futile endeavor.

By following a recently published paper entitled “The effect of publishing a highly cited paper on a journal’s impact factor: a case study of the Review of Particle Physics” in Learned Publishing, we argue that it is not suitable for journals to bid for the right to publish a review that is likely to be highly cited. A few suggestions are also provided to deal with the special case of the Review of Particle Physics phenomenon.

This article investigates whether editorial board members of selected economic journals publish their research papers in their 'own' journal. Journals were selected from the Journal Citation Report® from the categories Business; Business, Finance; and Economics. Only research articles published between 2012 and 2015 were included in the analysis. We recorded ratios concerning the share of articles authored by editorial board members, the share of editorial board members publishing in their own journals and ratios representing their publication output. The average share of articles authored by editorial board members ranges from 0.6 to 17.5%. The average share of editorial board members publishing in their own journals ranges from 5.6 to 24.4%. Considering only editorial board members publishing in their own journals, the share of their articles in their journals ranges from 8.2 to 71.4%. While the share of board members publishing only in their own journals, to the number of board members publishing in their own journals, the ratio in a quarter of journals is equal to zero, with a maximum reach of 85.7%. All observed ratios are significantly positively correlated with the gap between impact factor and impact factor without Journal Self Cites; and negatively correlated with the Article Influence Score. A cluster of journals in which a high proportion of editorial board members publish and simultaneously these members publish in their own journal at a high rate was identified.

Appeals to scrutinize the use of race and ethnicity as variables in genetics research notwithstanding, these variables continue to be inadequately explained and inconsistently used in research publications. In previous research, we found that published genetic research fails to follow suggestions offered for addressing this problem, such as explaining the basis on which these labels are assigned to populations. This study, an analysis of genetic research articles using race or ethnicity terms, explores possible features of journals that are associated with improved reporting of race and ethnicity in genetic research. A journal's expressed commitment to improving how race and ethnicity are used in genetic research, demonstrated by an editorial or in its instructions to authors, was the strongest predictor of following recommendations about reporting race and ethnicity. Journal impact factor had only a limited positive effect on attention to these issues, suggesting that editorial resources associated with higher impact factor journals are not sufficient to improve practices. Our findings reiterate that race and ethnicity variables are used inconsistently in genetic research, but also shed light on how journals might improve practices by highlighting the need for scientists to carefully scrutinize the use of these variables in their work.

High percentages of submitted papers are rejected at editorial levels without offering a second chance to authors by sending their papers for further peer-reviews. In most cases, the rejections are typical quick answers without helpful argumentations related to the content of the rejected material. More surprisingly, some journals vaunt their high rejection rates as a ‘‘mark of prestige’’! However, journals that reject high percentages of submitted papers have built their prominent positions based on a flawed measure, the impact factor, and from a long and favorable historical context. Their shareholders may think that they are allowed to have a large margin of rejection rates without affecting their sponsorship or funding sources thanks to an extended anchorage since tens, or in some cases hundreds, of years compared to unknown or new journals that struggle to pave a way in the scientific publication world. Historical anchorage of some journals also makes it unfair to compare old and new journals in term of whatever ‘‘popularity’’ or any ranking system. It will thus be unfair and biased appraisal to compare a journal that was launched in 2000 with a journal that was established in 1950 or 1900 or earlier. Rejecting a high percentage of papers became an objective per se for elitist journals to take pride in an artificial elitist club, arguing strangely that a high rejection rate is a gauge of quality. Worse, sometimes rejection decisions are made after long months of waiting, upwards of a year in some cases without giving information about why the paper is rejected or how to improve it, for at least to compensate authors by useful advices for their wasted time in waiting the journal’s negative decision. Doing so, they corrupt science and give negative images of their journals. Elitism is an attitude incompatible with science and knowledge dissemination.

Article retraction in research is rising, yet retracted articles continue to be cited at a disturbing rate. This paper presents an analysis of recent retraction patterns, with a unique emphasis on the role author self-cites play, to assist the scientific community in creating counter-strategies. This was accomplished by examining the following: (1) A categorization of retracted articles more complete than previously published work. (2) The relationship between citation counts and after-retraction self-cites from the authors of the work, and the distribution of self-cites across our retraction categories. (3) The distribution of retractions written by both the author and the editor across our retraction categories. (4) The trends for seven of our nine defined retraction categories over a 6-year period. (5) The average journal impact factor by category, and the relationship between impact factor, author self-cites, and overall citations. Our findings indicate new reasons for retractions have emerged in recent years, and more editors are penning retractions. The rates of increase for retraction varies by category, and there is statistically significant difference of average impact factor between many categories. 18 % of authors self-cite retracted work post retraction with only 10 % of those authors also citing the retraction notice. Further, there is a positive correlation between self-cites and after retraction citations.

There is an increasing trend towards assessing the scientific performance of researchers and institutions of higher learning in the form of journal publications and the associated citations. Currently, the journal impact factor (JIF) value is the most widely used measure for any academic contents. However, there are growing concerns for the unethical practices adopted by journal editors to manipulate the JIF computations. Recently, a Swiss journal, Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica which has a JIF value of 0.655 in the year 2006 registers a remarkable JIF increment (of 119%) to 1.439 in the year 2007. It is believed that the journal can achieve such a prominent JIF improvement by publishing a single editorial article that self-cited 66 of its own articles published either in the year 2005 or 2006. The journal has been revoked of any JIF value in the following year of 2008. Thus, it is interesting to review the possible alternative bibliographical trend for the journal should the self-cite event has been avoided, the circumstances leading to the decision by the editor to publish such an article and the possible ethical implications or lessons that can be derived from this incident.

Since the solution to many public health problems depends on research, it is critical for the progress and well-being for the patients that we can trust the scientific literature. Misconduct and poor laboratory practice in science threatens the scientific progress, leads to loss of productivity and increased healthcare costs, and endangers lives of patients. Data duplication may represent one of challenges related to these problems. In order to estimate the frequency of data duplication in life science literature, a systematic screen through 120 original scientific articles published in three different cancer related journals [journal impact factor (IF)5, 5-10 and20] was completed. The study revealed a surprisingly high proportion of articles containing data duplication. For the IF5 and IF20 journals, 25% of the articles were found to contain data duplications. The IF 5-10 journal showed a comparable proportion (22.5%). The proportion of articles containing duplicated data was comparable between the three journals and no significant correlation to journal IF was found. The editorial offices representing the journals included in this study and the individual authors of the detected articles were contacted to clarify the individual cases. The editorial offices did not reply and only 1 out of 29 cases were apparently clarified by the authors, although no supporting data was supplied. This study questions the reliability of life science literature, it illustrates that data duplications are widespread and independent of journal impact factor and call for a reform of the current peer review and retraction process of scientific publishing.

Journal impact factor (IF) is a value calculated annually based on the number of times articles published in a journal are cited in two, or more, of the preceding years. At the time of its inception in 1955 (Garfield 1955), the inventor of the impact factor did not imagine that 1 day his tool would become a controversial and abusive measure, as he confessed 44 years later (Garfield 1999). The impact factor became a major detrimental factor of quality, creating huge pressures on authors, editors, stakeholders and funders. More tragically, in some countries the number of publications in journals with ‘‘high impact factors’’ condition the allocation of government funding for entire institutions (Plos Medicine Editorial 2006). Based on the assumption that IF reflects scientific quality, the impact factor produces a widespread impression of prestige and reputation, though no experimental data support this hypothesis (Brembs et al. 2013). The impact factor was originally conceived as a bibliometric assessment tool for publishers and librarians to provide helpful information for subscription and library collection purposes, but over the years, it has been used abusively to assess the quality of not only journals, universities, and institutions, but also individuals and countries to promote or to ‘‘denigrate’’. Its deficiencies and perverse effects are tangibly harmful that make one wonders why such a biased tool continues to exist in science. Apart from technical and business-oriented goals (Abbasi 2007, Seglen 1997), the journal impact factors suffer from two important flaws, often neglected by researchers, that need to be highlighted due to their intrinsic contradiction with fundamental scholarly ethics. First, if an article on the subject of impact factors (based on the arithmetic mean used in the calculation of impact factor) is submitted to one of the so-called ‘‘high impact factor’’ journals, the submitted article would be immediately rejected. The editors and/or reviewers would argue that the statistical approach is biased due to

Not so long ago, a well institutionalized predatory journal exposed itself by publishing a hoax article that blew the whistle for its devastating influence on the academic affairs of a small country. This paper puts that experiment in context, gives all the important details and analyzes the results. The experiment was inspired by well-known cases of scientific activism and is in line with recent efforts against predatory publishers. The paper presents the evidence in detail and uses it to analyze the publishing practices of the offending journal, using established criteria for assessing predatory publications. That journal somehow acquired an impact factor and charged money to publish thousands of “scientific” papers without any peer review. Since the impact factor is the major official evaluation criteria for scientists in Serbia, these papers disturbed the whole academic evaluation process. Credentials acquired by those publications form a strong obstacle to institutionalized reasoned efforts against such practices. This case warns the whole community of the long lasting damage when journals with low publishing ethics are taken seriously.

For academic research outcomes, there is an increasing emphasis on the bibliometric scorings like the journal impact factor and citations when the assessment of the scientific merits of research or researchers is required. Currently, no known study has been conducted to explore the bibliographical trends of the subject category of multidisciplinary sciences as indexed by the annual Journal Citation Reports of the Thomson Scientific. The effect of journal self-citations and intra-citing within a discipline to the bibliometric data computation can be confounding. In this study, six journals were selected from the multidisciplinary sciences subject category where the trend of self-citations and intra-citing were analysed. These journals were chosen as they published more than 450 citable articles in the year 2007 and had available bibliometric data for a 10-year period. The results showed that self-citations rose as much as +23.98% while intra-citing declined up to −5.80% over the observed period. The retrospective impacts and influences of these observations were also discussed in this study.

As bibliographical classification of published journal items affects the denominator in this equation, we investigated how the numerator and denominator of the impact factor (IF) equation were generated for representative journals in two categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). We performed a full text search of the 1st-ranked journal in 2004 JCR category “ Medicine, General and Internal” (New England Journal of Medicine, NEJM, IF = 38.570) and 61st-ranked journal (Croatian Medical Journal, CMJ, IF = 0.690), 1st-ranked journal in category “ Multidisciplinary Sciences” (Nature, IF = 32.182) and journal with a relative rank of CMJ (Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, AABC, IF = 0.435). Large journals published more items categorized by Web of Science (WoS) as non-research items (editorial material, letters, news, book reviews, bibliographical items, or corrections): 63% out of total 5, 193 items in Nature and 81% out of 3, 540 items in NEJM, compared with 31% out of 283 items in CMJ and only 2 (2%) out of 126 items in AABC. Some items classified by WoS as non-original contained original research data (9.5% in Nature, 7.2% in NEJM, 13.7% in CMJ and none in AABC). These items received a significant number of citations: 6.9% of total citations in Nature, 14.7% in NEJM and 18.5% in CMJ. IF decreased for all journals when only items presenting original research and citations to them were used for IF calculation. Regardless of the journal’ s size or discipline, publication of non-original research and its classification by the bibliographical database have an effect on both numerator and denominator of the IF equation.