Making sense of non-events (citation, circulation, and publication) requires context and a tolerance for uncertainty.
A bold claim that citation impact is comparable across fields is disputed by researchers who question why uncited papers were excluded from the analysis.
A new study of article retractions concludes that the system is fast, democratic and significantly depresses future citations. Shouldn’t we demand more?
eLife asserts that professional editors create more harm than good. But how do we know that? How can we know that? Or is this just an emotional argument based on anecdote and conjecture rather than fact?
Boiling down the social Web to create a measure of influence? Not as easy as it looks.
If openness is an ideological tenant of science, why are scientists so secretive?
Free online books may increase discovery, but may not translate into increased sales or citations, a new study reports.
Post-publication review is spotty, unreliable, and may suffer from cronyism, several studies reveal.
Journals that fail to keep up with background Impact Factor inflation may actually be losing ground.
A new study analyzing the citation performance of identical articles in multiple sources provides new insight into the causes of citation. But does it accomplish its goals?
A new article suggests that institutional self-archiving mandates may benefit authors . . . if you ignore some inconsistent and inconvenient results.
Do medical editors have different quality standards based on the author’s geographic location?
National Academy of Sciences members contribute the very best (and very worst) articles in PNAS, a recent analysis suggests. Is diversity a better indicator of success than consistency in science publishing?
Peer-to-peer sharing of scientific articles is common for Indian scientists, a new study reports.
Unethical republication has created a unique opportunity to study the effect of journals on article citations.