CiteScore–Flawed But Still A Game Changer
The real innovation of CiteScore is not another performance metric, but a new marketing model focused on editors.
The real innovation of CiteScore is not another performance metric, but a new marketing model focused on editors.
There is sufficient supply of reviewers to meet demand, a new paper suggests. It’s just not evenly distributed.
Researchers may publish their best work at any point in their careers, a new study reports. This is not the same as success being the result of random forces or just plain “dumb luck.”
“Sound methodology” suggests an ideal match to a scientific question that never quite exists. So why do some publishers use it?
Artificial intelligence outperformed human editors in selecting high-impact papers, a Canadian software company claims. Really? Then show me the paper!
An interactive visualization of article publication data from the 2016 NSF Science & Engineering Report suggest discrepancies in the cultures of science around the world.
Citation network maps may indicate when gaming is taking place. Proving intention is a different story.
Higher Impact Factor, faster publication, and weaker data availability policies may be drawing authors away from PLOS ONE.
Citation indexes need to provide standardized citation histograms for editors and publishers. Without them, it is unlikely that they will be widely adopted. At worse, it will encourage the production of histograms that selectively highlight or obscure the data.
Publishing a histogram of a journal’s citation distribution won’t alleviate Impact Factor abuse. At best, it will be ignored. At worse, it will generate confusion.