Incorrect Citations Give Unfair Credit to Review Authors in Ecology Journals

The number of citations that papers receive has become significant in measuring researchers'' scientific productivity, and such measurements are important when one seeks career opportunities and research funding. Skewed citation practices can thus have profound effects on academic careers. We investigated (i) how frequently authors misinterpret original information and (ii) how frequently authors inappropriately cite reviews instead of the articles upon which the reviews are based. To reach this aim, we carried a survey of ecology journals indexed in the Web of Science and assessed the appropriateness of citations of review papers. Reviews were significantly more often cited than regular articles. In addition, 22% of citations were inaccurate, and another 15% unfairly gave credit to the review authors for other scientists'' ideas. These practices should be stopped, mainly through more open discussion among mentors, researchers and students.     

Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments. This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased when controlling for state''s per capita R&D expenditure and for study characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology. Although the confounding effect of institutions'' prestige could not be excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the most clever and successful in their experiments), these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists'' productivity but also their bias. The same phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.     

Impact analysis of a regional scientific journal (1980-2000): supporting promising local researchers pays the greatest dividends

During the past 28 years, the journal "Collegium Antropologicum" has continuously served as one of the main disseminators of anthropological scientific production in Central and Eastern Europe. The journal was committed to its role of a multidisciplinary platform for presenting wide range of research topics relevant to anthropology, from investigations within social and cultural anthropology and archaeology to those covering contemporary population genetics, human evolution and biomedical issues. Two key strategies aimed at sustaining and increasing the impact of this journal were oriented towards: (i) identification of promising local groups of researchers who were at disadvantage by many aspects (e.g. educational curricula, financial supports, language barriers etc.) when trying to publish their research internationally, and (ii) invitation and encouragement of already established international scientists to make contributions for "Collegium Antropologicum". From 1980-2000, 89 articles (or 6.3% of all published papers during that period) were cited 6 or more times, contributing disproportionately to journal's impact (nearly a third of all citations received). In an attempt to identify such papers more readily among the submissions to the journal in the future, we analyzed research topics and affiliations of the authors among the 89 papers receiving most citations in comparison to all papers published. Among the papers most frequently cited, we found greater-than-expected prevalence of Croatian researchers (especially when publishing in collaboration with international scientists) and studies of special populations. Several papers received more than 25 citations or had overall citation intensity greater than 2 per year. This implies that an interesting article from a local group of researchers can still resonate with international audience although published in a regional journal. Present analysis supports current editorial strategy that with a help of the international consulting editorial board continuously improves international recognition of this journal. The results imply that a balanced encouragement to promising local groups of researchers and to contributions of already established international scientists is a strategy superior to others in maintaining and increasing the impact of this regional journal.     

Do Scientific Advancements Lean on the Shoulders of Giants? A Bibliometric Investigation of the Ortega Hypothesis

Background

In contrast to Newton''s well-known aphorism that he had been able “to see further only by standing on the shoulders of giants,” one attributes to the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset the hypothesis saying that top-level research cannot be successful without a mass of medium researchers on which the top rests comparable to an iceberg.

Methodology/Principal Findings

The Ortega hypothesis predicts that highly-cited papers and medium-cited (or lowly-cited) papers would equally refer to papers with a medium impact. The Newton hypothesis would be supported if the top-level research more frequently cites previously highly-cited work than that medium-level research cites highly-cited work. Our analysis is based on (i) all articles and proceedings papers which were published in 2003 in the life sciences, health sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences, and (ii) all articles and proceeding papers which were cited within these publications. The results show that highly-cited work in all scientific fields more frequently cites previously highly-cited papers than that medium-cited work cites highly-cited work.

Conclusions/Significance

We demonstrate that papers contributing to the scientific progress in a field lean to a larger extent on previously important contributions than papers contributing little. These findings support the Newton hypothesis and call into question the Ortega hypothesis (given our usage of citation counts as a proxy for impact).     

Confundiendo al confuso: reflexiones sobre el factor de impacto,el índice h(irsch), el valor Q y otros cofactores que influyen en la felicidad del investigador

BackgroundThe need to evaluate curricula for sponsorship for research projects or professional promotion, has led to the search for tools that allow an objective valuation. However, the total number papers published, or citations of articles of a particular author, or the impact factor of the Journal where they are published are inadequate indicators for the evaluation of the quality and productivity of researchers. The h index, proposed by Hirsch, categorises the papers according to the number of citations per article. This tool appears to lack the limitations of other bibliometric tools but is less useful for non English-speaking authors.AimsTo propose and debate the usefulness of the existing bibliometric indicators and tools for the evaluation and categorization of researchers and scientific journals.MethodsSearch for papers on bibliometric tools.ResultsThere are some hot spots in the debate on the national and international evaluation of researchers’ productivity and quality of scientific journals. Opinions on impact factors and h index have been discussed. The positive discrimination, using the Q value, is proposed as an alternative for the evaluation of Spanish and Iberoamerican researchers.ConclusionsIt is very important de-mystify the importance of bibliometric indicators. The impact factor is useful for evaluating journals from the same scientific area but not for the evaluation of researchers’ curricula. For the comparison of curricula from two or more researchers, we must use the h index or the proposed Q value. the latter allows positive discrimination of the task for Spanish and Iberoamerican researchers.     

Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century

Debates over the pros and cons of a “publish or perish” philosophy have inflamed academia for at least half a century. Growing concerns, in particular, are expressed for policies that reward “quantity” at the expense of “quality,” because these might prompt scientists to unduly multiply their publications by fractioning (“salami slicing”), duplicating, rushing, simplifying, or even fabricating their results. To assess the reasonableness of these concerns, we analyzed publication patterns of over 40,000 researchers that, between the years 1900 and 2013, have published two or more papers within 15 years, in any of the disciplines covered by the Web of Science. The total number of papers published by researchers during their early career period (first fifteen years) has increased in recent decades, but so has their average number of co-authors. If we take the latter factor into account, by measuring productivity fractionally or by only counting papers published as first author, we observe no increase in productivity throughout the century. Even after the 1980s, adjusted productivity has not increased for most disciplines and countries. These results are robust to methodological choices and are actually conservative with respect to the hypothesis that publication rates are growing. Therefore, the widespread belief that pressures to publish are causing the scientific literature to be flooded with salami-sliced, trivial, incomplete, duplicated, plagiarized and false results is likely to be incorrect or at least exaggerated.     

How Are Academic Age,Productivity and Collaboration Related to Citing Behavior of Researchers?

References are an essential component of research articles and therefore of scientific communication. In this study we investigate referencing (citing) behavior in five diverse fields (astronomy, mathematics, robotics, ecology and economics) based on 213,756 core journal articles. At the macro level we find: (a) a steady increase in the number of references per article over the period studied (50 years), which in some fields is due to a higher rate of usage, while in others reflects longer articles and (b) an increase in all fields in the fraction of older, foundational references since the 1980s, with no obvious change in citing patterns associated with the introduction of the Internet. At the meso level we explore current (2006–2010) referencing behavior of different categories of authors (21,562 total) within each field, based on their academic age, productivity and collaborative practices. Contrary to some previous findings and expectations we find that senior researchers use references at the same rate as their junior colleagues, with similar rates of re-citation (use of same references in multiple papers). High Modified Price Index (MPI, which measures the speed of the research front more accurately than the traditional Price Index) of senior authors indicates that their research has the similar cutting-edge aspect as that of their younger colleagues. In all fields both the productive researchers and especially those who collaborate more use a significantly lower fraction of foundational references and have much higher MPI and lower re-citation rates, i.e., they are the ones pushing the research front regardless of researcher age. This paper introduces improved bibliometric methods to measure the speed of the research front, disambiguate lead authors in co-authored papers and decouple measures of productivity and collaboration.     

Contribution of Genome-Wide Association Studies to Scientific Research: A Bibliometric Survey of the Citation Impacts of GWAS and Candidate Gene Studies Published during the Same Period and in the Same Journals

In genetic epidemiology, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are used to rapidly scan a large set of genetic variants and thus to identify associations with a particular trait or disease. The GWAS philosophy is different to that of conventional candidate-gene-based approaches, which directly test the effects of genetic variants of potentially contributory genes in an association study. One controversial question is whether GWAS provide relevant scientific outcomes by comparison with candidate-gene studies. We thus performed a bibliometric study using two citation metrics to assess whether the GWAS have contributed a capital gain in knowledge discovery by comparison with candidate-gene approaches. We selected GWAS published between 2005 and 2009 and matched them with candidate-gene studies on the same topic and published in the same period of time. We observed that the GWAS papers have received, on average, 30±55 citations more than the candidate gene papers, 1 year after their publication date, and 39±58 citations more 2 years after their publication date. The GWAS papers were, on average, 2.8±2.4 and 2.9±2.4 times more cited than expected, 1 and 2 years after their publication date; whereas the candidate gene papers were 1.5±1.2 and 1.5±1.4 times more cited than expected. While the evaluation of the contribution to scientific research through citation metrics may be challenged, it cannot be denied that GWAS are great hypothesis generators, and are a powerful complement to candidate gene studies.     

Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding

Agencies that fund scientific research must choose: is it more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers? Large grants would be more effective only if scientific impact increases as an accelerating function of grant size. Here, we examine the scientific impact of individual university-based researchers in three disciplines funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We considered four indices of scientific impact: numbers of articles published, numbers of citations to those articles, the most cited article, and the number of highly cited articles, each measured over a four-year period. We related these to the amount of NSERC funding received. Impact is positively, but only weakly, related to funding. Researchers who received additional funds from a second federal granting council, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, were not more productive than those who received only NSERC funding. Impact was generally a decelerating function of funding. Impact per dollar was therefore lower for large grant-holders. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that larger grants lead to larger discoveries. Further, the impact of researchers who received increases in funding did not predictably increase. We conclude that scientific impact (as reflected by publications) is only weakly limited by funding. We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more productive.     

A simple index for the high-citation tail of citation distribution to quantify research performance in countries and institutions

Background

Conventional scientometric predictors of research performance such as the number of papers, citations, and papers in the top 1% of highly cited papers cannot be validated in terms of the number of Nobel Prize achievements across countries and institutions. The purpose of this paper is to find a bibliometric indicator that correlates with the number of Nobel Prize achievements.

Methodology/Principal Findings

This study assumes that the high-citation tail of citation distribution holds most of the information about high scientific performance. Here I propose the x-index, which is calculated from the number of national articles in the top 1% and 0.1% of highly cited papers and has a subtractive term to discount highly cited papers that are not scientific breakthroughs. The x-index, the number of Nobel Prize achievements, and the number of national articles in Nature or Science are highly correlated. The high correlations among these independent parameters demonstrate that they are good measures of high scientific performance because scientific excellence is their only common characteristic. However, the x-index has superior features as compared to the other two parameters. Nobel Prize achievements are low frequency events and their number is an imprecise indicator, which in addition is zero in most institutions; the evaluation of research making use of the number of publications in prestigious journals is not advised.

Conclusion

The x-index is a simple and precise indicator for high research performance.     

The Hirsch-index: a simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists

In this brief paper we explore the Hirsch-index together with a couple of other bibliometric parameters for the assessment of the scientific output of 29 Dutch professors in clinical cardiology. It appears that even within such a homogeneous group there is large interindividual variability. Although the differences are quite remarkable, it remains undetermined what they mean; at least it is premature to interpret them as differences in scientific quality. It goes without saying that even more prudence is required when different fields of medicine and life sciences are compared (for example within University Medical Centres). Recent efforts to produce an amalgam of scientific ‘productivity’, ‘relevance’ and ‘viability’ as a surrogate parameter for the assessment of scientific quality, as for example performed in the AMC in Amsterdam, should be discouraged in the absence of a firm scientific base. Unfortunately for politicians and ‘managers of science’ only reading papers and studying are suitable for quality assessment of scientific output. Citations analyses can't substitute that. (Neth Heart J 2009;17:145–54.)     

SP-index: The measure of the scientific production of researchers

Ability to assess how solidly one is participating in their research arena is a metric that is of interest to many persons in academia. Such assessment is not easily defined, and differences exist in terms of which metric is the most accurate. In reality, no single production metric exists that is easy to determine and acceptable by the entire scientific community. Here we propose the SP-index to quantify the scientific production of researchers, representing the product of the annual citation number by the accumulated impact factors of the journals whereby the papers appeared, divided by the annual number of published papers. This article discusses such a productivity measure and lends support for the development of unified citation metrics for use by all participating in science research or teaching.     

Systematic Differences in Impact across Publication Tracks at PNAS

Background

Citation data can be used to evaluate the editorial policies and procedures of scientific journals. Here we investigate citation counts for the three different publication tracks of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). This analysis explores the consequences of differences in editor and referee selection, while controlling for the prestige of the journal in which the papers appear.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We find that papers authored and “Contributed” by NAS members (Track III) are on average cited less often than papers that are “Communicated” for others by NAS members (Track I) or submitted directly via the standard peer review process (Track II). However, we also find that the variance in the citation count of Contributed papers, and to a lesser extent Communicated papers, is larger than for direct submissions. Therefore when examining the 10% most-cited papers from each track, Contributed papers receive the most citations, followed by Communicated papers, while Direct submissions receive the least citations.

Conclusion/Significance

Our findings suggest that PNAS “Contributed” papers, in which NAS–member authors select their own reviewers, balance an overall lower impact with an increased probability of publishing exceptional papers. This analysis demonstrates that different editorial procedures are associated with different levels of impact, even within the same prominent journal, and raises interesting questions about the most appropriate metrics for judging an editorial policy''s success.     

On the Relation between the Small World Structure and Scientific Activities

The modern science has become more complex and interdisciplinary in its nature which might encourage researchers to be more collaborative and get engaged in larger collaboration networks. Various aspects of collaboration networks have been examined so far to detect the most determinant factors in knowledge creation and scientific production. One of the network structures that recently attracted much theoretical attention is called small world. It has been suggested that small world can improve the information transmission among the network actors. In this paper, using the data on 12 periods of journal publications of Canadian researchers in natural sciences and engineering, the co-authorship networks of the researchers are created. Through measuring small world indicators, the small worldiness of the mentioned network and its relation with researchers’ productivity, quality of their publications, and scientific team size are assessed. Our results show that the examined co-authorship network strictly exhibits the small world properties. In addition, it is suggested that in a small world network researchers expand their team size through getting connected to other experts of the field. This team size expansion may result in higher productivity of the whole team as a result of getting access to new resources, benefitting from the internal referring, and exchanging ideas among the team members. Moreover, although small world network is positively correlated with the quality of the articles in terms of both citation count and journal impact factor, it is negatively related with the average productivity of researchers in terms of the number of their publications.     

Interest in physician-buyout packages grows as more doctors contemplate retirement

Provincial governments are turning to voluntary retirement programs, buyouts and phase-outs to help manage physician supply. Demographic data show that in 1996 nearly 27% of Canada''s active physicians were aged 55 or older and that the average age of retiring physicians was 68. Although 1 goal of such programs is to give willing older physicians the financial ability to retire, provinces also hope to do away with some billing numbers.     

How wide is the “knowing-doing” gap in invasion biology?

Invasion biology is a growing discipline with clear ecological, social and economic implications. A wide range of research effort is thus required to address the invasion problem, and literature on the topic is extensive. However, the extent to which the invasion biology research is addressing the challenges associated with management and mitigation of the impacts of invasions has been questioned. Using bibliometric analysis, we investigated the extent to which the literature on the subject contributes to implementation of knowledge generated, by addressing aspects of management, policy, and/or implementation; the impact of these papers as indicated by the number of citations they attract; and the geopolitical scale of focus of invasion ecology papers, particularly those that attempt to bridge the knowing-doing gap. We then compared these findings with the information needs of conservation practitioners. We first looked globally at popular search engines and then narrowed our focus to South Africa—one of three regions outside USA where researchers producing highly cited papers in invasion ecology are well represented. At this level, we conducted a content analysis of invasion ecology-related papers, of which at least one author was affiliated to a South African institution. The knowledge base in the field of invasion biology is comprised largely of research oriented towards “knowing”, while research aimed at strategically applying or implementing that knowledge is poorly represented in the scientific literature, and the scale of its emphasis is not local. Conservation practitioners clearly indicate a need for basic knowledge. However, invasion science must develop channels for effective engagement to ensure that the research is contextualised, and will deal with the complex ecological, social and economic challenges posed by invasions.     

Informe: análisis de las publicaciones de socios de la Sociedad Española de Geriatría y Gerontología del año 2006 al 2011

Data is presented from the survey conducted by the Sociedad Española de Geriatría y Gerontología (SEGG) (Spanish Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology) among its members in order to assess their scientific production between 2006 and 2011, specifically articles in journals that are indexed in the Science Citation Index. The scientific quality of the publications was quantified using the number of times every article was cited and the journal's impact factor. A total of 162 out of the 2450 members responded (6.6%), reporting a total of 903 individual articles, 335 (37%) of them in geriatrics-specific journals, and 568 (63%) in other journals of other specialties. The number of publications increased yearly from 128 in 2006 to 201 in 2010. The scientific quality could be calculated for 530 articles. On average, publications have been cited 8.2 times (median: 2), with the range of citations being from 0 to 242. The average impact factor was 3.1 (median 2.4), ranging from 0 to 53.5. A number of articles have been published in some of the largest impact factor journals, in those of general-interest, as well as geriatrics-specific and basic science journals.