Editors are in a position of power to coerce authors to cite their journal and personal papers. Can algorithms help detect misconduct when authors and journal staff are unwilling to speak out?
Phil Davis examines how publication timing can affect annual Journal Impact Factor scores.
Why do authors continue to cite preprints years after they’ve been formally published?
As an alternative to the Journal Impact Factor, editors propose an index that measures highly cited papers.
Journal suppression is an effective tool for reducing high rates of self-citation, even years after a title is reintroduced.
Now we know how suppression decisions are made, should metrics companies suppress titles at all or simply make the underlying data more transparent?
Is citation manipulation a moral problem or an accounting problem?
A brief summary of the main citation indicators used today.
How much can a single editor distort the citation record? Investigation documents rogue editor’s coercion of authors to cite his journal, papers.
The real innovation of CiteScore is not another performance metric, but a new marketing model focused on editors.
Citation network maps may indicate when gaming is taking place. Proving intention is a different story.
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.
If Thomson Reuters can calculate Impact Factors and Eigenfactors, why can’t they deliver a simple median score?
While offering real improvements over Thomson Reuters, Scopus may be suffering from serious data integrity issues and communication problems with its third-party publishers.
Thomson Reuters’ approach of indexing by journal section and revising by demand leads to great inconsistencies across journals and inflates the Impact Factors of elite journals. The solution: remove the human element.