Citation Contamination: References to Predatory Journals in the Legitimate Scientific Literature
How many articles from predatory journals are being cited in the legitimate (especially medical) literature? Some disturbing findings.
Revisiting: Splitting the Difference — Does an Editorial Mutiny at a Journal Do Much Long-term Damage?
The recent editorial board defection from an Elsevier journal brings up issues raised in Todd Carpenter’s 2013 post on editorial boycotts and declarations of independence. They generate a lot of heat, but what do the data say about the actual success of the new journals compared to the journals that were overthrown.
If We don’t Know What Citations Mean, What Does it Mean when We Count Them?
There is no shortage of critique of citation metrics and other efforts to quantify the “impact” of scholarship. Will a report calling for “responsible metrics” help researchers, administrators and funders finally wean themselves?
When Do Citations Reflect "Impact?"
Citation practices vary between and within STM and HSS; they also vary by discipline and within disciplines. Though citation metrics presume evidence of “impact,” in fact a citation may represent a range of intentions. Given the emphasis on citation indices, isn’t it important to query what scholars are actually doing when they cite another scholar’s work?
Why are Authors Citing Older Papers?
Scholars are citing an increasingly aging collection of scholarship. Does this reflect the growing ease with accessing the literature, or a structural shift in the way science is funded–and the way scientists are rewarded?
Why Are Publishers and Editors Wasting Time Formatting Citations?
The majority of time spent in editing and formatting citations in the publication process is time wasted. We now have in place nearly all the components to use persistent identifiers, linked metadata, and style sheets to improve how citations can be structured and processed. Using these tools can significantly improve the accuracy of references and reduce the time editors spend on this production function. Even when automated, we bounce between linked metadata, then to text, then to metadata again.
Exhibition Prohibition — Why Shouldn’t Publishers Celebrate an Improved Impact Factor?
A trend toward shaming journals that promote their impact factors needs to be rolled back. Impact factors are journal metrics. It’s the other uses that need to be curtailed.
Splitting the Difference — Does an Editorial Mutiny at a Journal Do Much Long-term Damage?
Editorial boycotts and declarations of independence generate a lot of heat, but what do the data say about the actual success of the new journals compared to the journals that were overthrown.
Can F1000 Recommendations Predict Future Citations?
Expert ratings have poorer predictive power than journal citation metrics, study reveals.
Netherlands Heart Journal Editor Delivers Dutch Citation Treat
Editors have learned how to exploit a simple loophole in the calculation of the Impact Factor. Is it time to close that loophole?
How Much of the Literature Goes Uncited?
Making sense of non-events (citation, circulation, and publication) requires context and a tolerance for uncertainty.
Gaming Google Scholar Citations, Made Simple and Easy
A new paper demonstrates how easy it is to game Google Scholar citations, and how the system resists correction.
Stretching "Impact" By Many "Factors" — Signs of Thrall and Uncertainty?
As new metrics are explored, not everything equates to “impact.” Getting our terms right will help us get our thinking straight.
Of Confections and Citations, Missteps and Marzipan
An attempt to entice citations from authors leads to a memorable story for the holidays.
Size and Discipline Bias in F1000 Journal Rankings
The rankings of journals based on F1000 scores reveals a strong bias against larger journals and those with little disciplinary overlap with the biosciences.