Search

Authors with compound family names face a constant set of challenges in having their names accurately represented in the scientific literature. In my personal case (Teixeira da Silva, JA), an as-yet-unquantified body of literature miscites me (and thus my work) as "da Silva, JAT", "Silva, JA", or other inaccurate forms. This paper provides evidence of the modification and thus misrepresentation of my professional publishing name in proofs of select papers eventually published in Springer Nature journals, despite the accuracy of metadata at the submission and acceptance stages. This record may also be helpful for other scientists with non-standard or compound family names, who may have had a similar experience. Springer Nature currently outsources the development of its proofs to Straive. Possible reasons as to why this misrepresentation might be occurring, and some solutions, are proposed. The misrepresentation of an author's professional publishing name may cause them reputational damage by distorting their publishing record, so publishers need to be aware of this issue and take appropriate measures to avoid such errors, correcting them whenever they are discovered and reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent paper published in European Science Editing (ESE; https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e102691) assessed that journal's citations in 38 papers published between 2020 and 2022 using Dimensions and Scopus. The rationale for that study was that Dimensions, unlike Scopus, was "free", and thus a useful substitute for bibliometric analyses, but it is contended herein that the latter claim is not entirely accurate. To complement that analysis, citations of the same 38 papers, as well as 29 papers that had not been analyzed, giving the full complement of 67 papers published in ESE from 2020 to 2022, were reassessed (17 October 2023) using Scopus, Dimensions, and Google Scholar, since the latter is free. In addition, those papers' attention scores were appreciated from their Altmetrics scores, which were harvested from Dimensions. Although citation trends for the 38 papers were replicated, when the Altmetric scores of the additional 29 papers were also considered, the Altmetric score for ESE increased by 221 from 633 to give a total of 854. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the number of retractions of the academic literature increase, there is also a bibliometric interest in appreciating the volume of citations that retracted papers received prior to, and following, a retraction. We assessed the pre- and post-citation counts of one paper each of five classes of retracted papers using the Web of Science Core Collection (WOS-CC). The papers (and their respective DOIs) were: (C1) Data or classification error (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204076); (C2) fraud (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1208-0); C3) paper mill (https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2381482); C4) tortured phrase (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02455-4); C5) plagiarism (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2012.06.051). C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5 were cited (September 7, 2022) 43, 45, 35, 3, and 16 times, respectively. Separately, noting the shortcomings of the WOS-CC citation classification system for citations, we propose a new four-tier classification system for citation sentiment or use (background; supportive; contradictory; manipulative) that accommodates both the functionality and sentiment of a citation to assess how a retracted paper (or indeed, any paper), is cited. We tested this new classification system using C5. We envision that these two new systems (five classes of retracted papers; four tiers of citation behavior) can further be implemented in citation databases to improve the informative value of these resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to a letter by Ansorge, who questioned whether authors or science need the right not to want to be cited, we fully respect his opinion and choice to express that he believes that such a right is not needed. However, we counter that argument by noting that, even in the absence of concrete examples, to have a solid theoretical basis for arguing a right is essential, even if it is not always welcomed, or appreciated by all, or even many. The ability to have an equal right on any two sides of any argument or situation, including those related to the right to cite a paper, or to not cite a paper, or even to be cited, or to not want to be cited, is a fundamental right that we advocated for in our initial letter, and which we fortify in this follow-up letter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Elsevier (Scopus) CiteScore is an increasingly popular journal-based metric (JBM) that is rapidly gaining popularity over its once decades-dominant JBM, Clarivate Analytics' Journal Impact Factor (JIF). CiteScore, which is currently assigned to over 41,000 Scopus-indexed journals or other sources, faces a risk that does not seem to have yet been discussed, namely its "hijacking" to create a copy-cat or misleading metric. The JIF is already famously suffering this phenomenon in "predatory" open access publishing, but predators in the realm of academic publishing are constantly seeking ways to expand their "prey" base, i.e., authors. The use of fake metrics, or copy-cat metrics, that give the impression of a famed JBM or other metric, like the JIF or CiteScore, are created in an attempt to lure unsuspecting academics—who might erroneously associate a metric as a "quality" parameter—to their journals. It would not be surprising to see the emergence of copy-cat CiteScore-like metrics emerging. Academics, editors and publishers need to be vigilant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes Covid-19, induced a global pandemic for which an effective cure, either in the form of a drug or vaccine, has yet to be discovered. In the few brief months that the world has known Covid-19, there has been an unprecedented volume of papers published related to this disease, either in a bid to find solutions, or to discuss applied or related aspects. Data from Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, and Elsevier's Scopus, which do not index preprints, were assessed. Our estimates indicate that 23,634 unique documents, 9960 of which were in common to both databases, were published between January 1 and June 30, 2020. Publications include research articles, letters, editorials, notes and reviews. As one example, amongst the 21,542 documents in Scopus, 47.6% were research articles, 22.4% were letters, and the rest were reviews, editorials, notes and other. Based on both databases, the top three countries, ranked by volume of published papers, are the USA, China, and Italy while BMJ, Journal of Medical Virology and The Lancet published the largest number of Covid-19-related papers. This paper provides one snapshot of how the publishing landscape has evolved in the first six months of 2020 in response to this pandemic and discusses the risks associated with the speed of publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic research output is increasing at a very fast growth rate per year. Given this expansion, new publishers will enter the market or existing publishers will introduce new journals to capture the rapidly expanding intellectual contributions in scholarly publishing. It is thus natural that when competing factions, new and pre-existing publishers, vie to capture this expansion that inter-journal and inter-publisher competition arises. This competitive environment may induce unhealthy competition with the use of inappropriate or unacceptable tactics to gain a share of the expanding market. In the recent open access era, questionable review, pricing, managerial and marketing practices by journals or publishers that claim to be scholarly are broadly referred to as "predatory". One way to capture some of the expanding market is to use unsolicited emails, referred to as spam emails, to attract customers. This method has always been a questionable business practice that imposes costs. In this paper we address issues associated with spam emails, and our conservative estimate of the external costs of spam from publishers and journals amounts to US$ 1.1 billion per year. When all spam emails are included in the calculation, the cost rises to approximately US$ 2.6 billion per year. Academics that respond to spam emails from journals that do not conduct peer review also risk damaging their careers by publishing their intellect in such outlets. Finally, spam emails may include phishing attacks, which also result in financial losses. By making academics aware of these costs we hope measures can be taken by affected institutes to reduce the negative externality of spam emails and offer some potential solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a Letter to the Editor, the authors of this paper show, to highlight the practical risks of using the h-index, how academics’ data and bibliometric information can be misrepresented. In this rejoinder, we examine the comments offered in letters by Judit Bar-Ilan, Rodrigo Costas and Thomas Franssen, as well as Lutz Bornmann and Loet Leydesdorff, to offer additional insight and critique. This form of open debate about a topic that may potentially affect many academics is an excellent initiative by Scientometrics, and widens the possibilities of holding journal-based discussion forums rather than in informal journal clubs or blogs. We continue to believe that the h-index has some value by offering a crude measure of productivity, but not when used alone. How the accuracy of different h-indexes is calculated, and how h-index-based productivity is associated with academic quality are issues that merit greater research. Finally, we confirm that the Web of Science database search function for compound family names gives erroneous output which can disadvantage those academics with such family names. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The h-index, or Hirsch index, named after Jorge E. Hirsch, is one of the few author-based metrics currently available that offers a perspective of the productivity and citation impact of a scientist, researcher, or academic. There are four tools most commonly used to calculate the h-index, all of which depend on separate databases: Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate. Using the h-index of the authors of this paper derived from these four sources, it is abundantly clear that scores vary widely and that it is unclear which of these sources is a reliable or accurate source of information, for any purpose. As the use and application of author-based metrics increases, including for official academic purposes, it is becoming increasingly important to know which source of the h-index is most accurate, and thus valid. Although this is not a review of the h-index, some perspectives are provided of the h-index-related literature to place this case study within a wider context of the weaknesses and criticisms of using the h-index as a metric to evaluate scientific outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, the journal impact factor (JIF), owned by Thomson Reuters (now Clarivate Analytics), has been the dominant metric in scholarly publishing. Hated or loved, the JIF dominated academic publishing for the better part of six decades. However, a rise in the ranks of unscholarly journals, academic corruption and fraud has also seen the accompaniment of a parallel universe of competing metrics, some of which might also be predatory, misleading, or fraudulent, while others yet may in fact be valid. On December 8, 2016, Elsevier B.V. launched a direct competing metric to the JIF, CiteScore (CS). This short communication explores the similarities and differences between JIF and CS. It also explores what this seismic shift in metrics culture might imply for journal readership and authorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perpetuation of retracted publications is an ongoing and even increasing problem in the scientific community. In addition to the direct distortion of scientific credibility, the use of retracted findings for interpretation und discussion in subsequent publications poses the risk of drawing false and, for example in medical research, even harmful conclusions. One major contributor to this development is that many authors are not aware of the retraction status of a paper they cite. COPE guidelines state that the 'retracted status should be indicated as clearly as possible', but this is definitely not true for many retracted publications. Likewise, databases do not consequently link retracted articles with the notice of retraction. Furthermore, many papers are deposit in the 'original', i.e. pre-retraction version on personal or institutional websites or online repositories. Similarly, printed 'stock files' are obviously unaffected by a retraction. Clear identification of a retracted article using a watermark and in databases is a crucial step while incorporation of an electronic 'retraction check' in reference management software and during the online submission is necessary to detect and avoid citing retracted literature. Solving this problem needs the close attention of everybody involved in the publishing process: authors, reviewers, and publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]