Parallel worlds of citable documents and others: Inflated commissioned opinion articles enhance scientometric indicators

@article{Heneberg2014ParallelWO,
  title={Parallel worlds of citable documents and others: Inflated commissioned opinion articles enhance scientometric indicators},
  author={Petr Heneberg},
  journal={Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology},
  year={2014},
  volume={65}
}
  • P. Heneberg
  • Published 1 March 2014
  • History
  • Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Scientometric indicators influence the standing of journals among peers, thus affecting decisions regarding manuscript submissions, scholars' careers, and funding. Here we hypothesize that impact‐factor boosting (unethical behavior documented previously in several underperforming journals) should not be considered as exceptional, but that it affects even the top‐tier journals. We performed a citation analysis of documents recently published in 11 prominent general science and biomedical… 

Citation Characteristics of Non-Citable Documents and Contributions to Journal Impact Factor

TLDR
The cited characteristics of NCDs are explored and it is shown that only for a few journals are the N CDs contributions to JIF higher; these are mainly medical journals.

A bibliometric investigation of the journals that were repeatedly suppressed from Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports.

Journals indexed by Clarivate are temporarily suppressed from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) if their Journal Impact Factor (JIF) scores are distorted through excessive self-citations or citation

Please don't aim for a highly cited paper

Citation-based metrics are important in determining careers, so it is unsurprising that recent publications advise prospective authors on how to write highly cited papers. While such publications

From Excessive Journal Self-Cites to Citation Stacking: Analysis of Journal Self-Citation Kinetics in Search for Journals, Which Boost Their Scientometric Indicators

TLDR
Although the kinetics of journal self-cites is generally faster compared to foreign cites, it shows some field-specific characteristics, and particularly in information science journals, the initial increase in a share of journalSelf-citations during post-publication year 0 was completely absent.

Self-citation Analysis using Sentence Embeddings

TLDR
A large-scale analysis of journal self-citations is conducted while taking into consideration the similarity between a publication and its references and compute similarities of article-reference pairs using sentence embeddings.

A Large-Scale Analysis of Impact Factor Biased Journal Self-Citations

TLDR
The share of journals for which the proposed measure has a (very) high value has remained stable between the 1980s and the early 2000s, but has since risen strongly in all fields of science, suggesting a trend of increasingly pervasive journal self-citation malpractices.

On the identification and analysis of citation pattern irregularities among journals

TLDR
A diverse feature set is defined that can identify cases of extreme outliers and reason them to ensure that the quality of a journal is withheld without compromising research integrity by controlling or auditing individual features periodically.

Journals that Rise from the Fourth Quartile to the First Quartile in Six Years or Less: Mechanisms of Change and the Role of Journal Self-Citations

TLDR
The main conclusion is that there was no evidence of widespread JIF manipulation through the overuse of journal self-citations.

A user’s guide to inflated and manipulated impact factors

The journal impact factor (JIF)1 is without a doubt the most widely used, misused and abused bibliometric index in academic science. Journals are ranked within their field based on JIF, and JIF is

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 27 REFERENCES

Improving the accuracy of Institute for Scientific Information's journal impact factors

TLDR
Evidence is presented that for a considerable number of journals the values of the impact factors published in ISI's Journal Citation Reports (JCR) are inaccurate, particularly for several journals having a high impact factor.

The history and meaning of the journal impact factor.

TLDR
The journal impact factor was created to help select additional source journals and is based on the number of citations in the current year to items published in the previous 2 years, which allows for the inclusion of many small but influential journals.

Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?

TLDR
The core of the problem lies not necessarily at the side of the data producer, but part of the broader problem of the application of insufficiently developed bibliometric indicators used by persons who do not have clear competence and experience in the field of quantitative studies of science.

Interactions between journal attributes and authors' willingness to wait for editorial decisions

TLDR
It is mentioned that for a high-quality article, researchers are willing to wait some 18 months longer for a journal with an ISI impact factor above 2 than for aJournal without an impact factor, keeping all other factors constant.

Journal Citation Reports.">Five-year impact factor data in the Journal Citation Reports

TLDR
The paper looks at one of the important enhancements to the JCR, the new five‐year journal impact factor (JIF) score, which complements the traditional JIF scores and data.

Journal impact measures in bibliometric research

TLDR
It is shown that in contrast to a common misbelief statistical methods can be applied to discrete "skewed" distributions, and that the statistical reliability of these statistics can be used as a basis for application of journal impact measures in comparative analyses.

The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age

TLDR
This work compares the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009 to bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.

Referencing patterns of individual researchers: Do top scientists rely on more extensive information sources?

TLDR
This study presents an analysis of the use of bibliographic references by individual scientists in three different research areas, showing inter-area differences in the number, type, and age of references.

Grim tales about the impact factor and the h-index in the Web of Science and the Journal Citation Reports databases: reflections on Vanclay’s criticism

TLDR
It is argued and demonstrated that some of the recent papers of the author about scientometric issues, measures and sources show so much demagoguery, ignorance and arrogance, have so much prejudice and bias, and make profound errors in using the databases, calculating metrics, and interpreting search results that the papers are very unlikely to be meant as a genuine contribution.

Supposedly uncited articles of Nobel laureates and Fields medalists can be prevalently attributed to the errors of omission and commission

TLDR
Over 90% of the uncited database records of highly visible scientists can be explained by the inclusion of editorial materials progress reports presented at international meetings, discussion items, personalia (biographic items), and by errors of omission and commission of the Web of Science database and of the citing documents.