A proposal to substitute graphs of citation distributions for impact factors introduces many problems the authors don’t seem to have fully grasped, including unintentionally bolstering the importance of the very metric they seek to diminish.
If Thomson Reuters can calculate Impact Factors and Eigenfactors, why can’t they deliver a simple median score?
Scholarly Kitchen chef Todd Carpenter discusses technical standards in today’s scholarly-publishing landscape, and what’s on the horizon.
An animated bubble plot of nearly four-thousand biomedical journals over ten years reveals success, decline and the shifting nature of science publishing.
An attempt to entice citations from authors leads to a memorable story for the holidays.
A new study suggests a weakening of the relationship between a journal’s impact factor and the articles published therein. An unorthodox analysis and unwillingness to share data for validation purposes raises serious questions about how seriously to take this study.
Purchasing artificial trust and reputation on the Internet has never been easier or cheaper. What does this mean for metrics-based evaluations?
Testing the hypothesis that editors are manipulating publication dates to increase their journal’s Impact Factor.
Publishing an article online and then post-dating its “official” publication several months later may be used to game a journal’s impact factor, a scientist claims.
Promises of more citations if authors pay are problematic in more ways than one.
Is it ethical for editors to alert authors of relevant in-journal articles?
Manipulating online rating systems may be more common than you think. Journals promoting highly-downloaded and rated articles should take note.
Free scientific articles improve scholarship in developing countries. Subscription journals largely responsible.
Should scientists receive only partial credit for coauthored papers?
Italian researchers may have discovered the solution to comparing citation impact across disciplines. Is the Impact Factor next?