Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions

  title={Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions},
  author={Judit Dobr{\'a}nszki and Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva},
  pages={387 - 398}
Citation-based metrics are frequently used to evaluate the level, or quality, of a researcher, or their work, often as a function of the ranking of the journal in which they publish, and broadly tend to be divided into journal-based metrics (JBMs) and author-based metrics (ABMs). Despite wide knowledge of the gaming of such metrics, in particular the Clarivate Analytics journal impact factor (JIF), no suitable substitute concept has yet emerged, nor has any corrective measure been developed. In… Expand
Citation metrics for appraising scientists: misuse, gaming and proper use
The continued inability to identify predatory and other easy journals invalidates calls to ban such entities or to not cite papers from currently blacklisted predatory journals, as was recently suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Expand
Analysis of Percentiles of Computer Science, Theory and Methods Journals CiteScore Versus Impact Factor
Caution is recommended in journal evaluation as conflicting different results can be obtained using the same metric and the median test contradicts the ANOVA as the medians of impact factor and CiteScore are different at 0.05 level of significance. Expand
Do Legitimate Publishers Benefit or Profit from Error, Misconduct or Fraud?
One of the aspects of post-publication peer review that is difficult for reputable journals or publishers to accept is that it may reveal flaws in their oft-claimed resilient peer review andExpand
Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities
This study aims to profile the scientific retractions published in journals indexed in the Web of Science database from 2010 to 2019, from researchers at the top 20 World Class Universities accordingExpand
An extended state of uncertainty: A snap-shot of expressions of concern in neuroscience
  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Yuki Yamada
  • Medicine
  • 2021


Overview of journal metrics
Various kinds of metrics used for the quantitative evaluation of scholarly journals are reviewed. The impact factor and related metrics including the immediacy index and the aggregate impact factor,Expand
Publishing and impact criteria, and their bearing on Translation Studies: In search of comparability
This paper questions the current concept of quality as used in research assessment rankings and peer review, with special reference to the link often established between impact and the way thisExpand
Impact factors, citation distributions and journal stratification
  • C. Blanford
  • Materials Science
  • Journal of Materials Science
  • 2016
This past July, an international team of researchers and publishers published a proposal that academic journals share their citation distributions to encourage authors, publishers and institutions toExpand
Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes
The h-index is one of the few author-based metrics currently available that offers a perspective of the productivity and citation impact of a scientist, researcher, or academic and it is unclear which of these sources is a reliable or accurate source of information, for any purpose. Expand
Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level
An improved method to quantify the influence of a research article by making novel use of its co-citation network to field-normalize the number of citations it has received, which provides an alternative to the invalid practice of using journal impact factors to identify influential papers. Expand
Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics
An algorithm is proposed to assess the relevance of the most common bibliometric tools to help the researchers select the fittest journal and know the trends of published submissions by using self-evaluation. Expand
Do subjective journal ratings represent whole journals or typical articles? Unweighted or weighted citation impact?
  • W. Walters
  • Psychology, Computer Science
  • J. Informetrics
  • 2017
Within the disciplines evaluated here, respondents’ subjective ratings of journals are more closely related to size-independent metrics and weighted metrics, and popularity and prestige are sometimes associated with unweighted and weighted citation metrics, respectively. Expand
CiteScore: A cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric?
This short communication explores the similarities and differences between JIF and CS and explores what this seismic shift in metrics culture might imply for journal readership and authorship. Expand
The Google Scholar h-index: useful but burdensome metric
This note indicates how, in just a four-month period, the Google Scholar account of the author has become polluted with literature that was not published by the author, reducing the academic value of Google Scholar. Expand
The Google Scholar h-index: useful but burdensome metric
A recent paper in Scientometrics highlighted how the h-index of an academic can be represented differently by different platforms, for example by Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar orExpand