Implications of a Single Highly Cited Article on a Journal and Its Citation Indexes: A Tale of Two Journals

Citation indexes such as journal impact factor are increasingly used to evaluate the quality of a scholarly work and/or assess one's scientific contributions. However, this simplistic approach has increasingly been refuted with publication gaming and incorrect applications to rank one's academic significance. These indexes are being game not only by researchers but also subtly by journal editors. Although the attention drawn from the public pertaining to such misbehaviors from editors is limited, the associated implications cannot be undermined. In this article, the focus will be on the motivations, impacts, and lessons learnt from how single highly cited article can have on the reactions from and the reputation of two academic journals: Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica and Acta Crystallographica Section A. For the former, it adopted an unconventional approach to improve its prominence in the field while the latter reiterates the correct and the original intent of citation indexes, as well as the importance of good editorial governance. From these incidents, few considerations are proposed to assist in minimising the recurrence of possible publication gaming in the editorial process. However, the inherent ethical values of an individual should still take precedence of any preventive measure.

[1]  E. Fong,et al.  Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing , 2012, Science.

[2]  Michael C. Wendl,et al.  H-index: however ranked, citations need context , 2007, Nature.

[3]  S. Bloch,et al.  Counting on citations: a flawed way to measure quality , 2003, The Medical journal of Australia.

[4]  Ana Marusic,et al.  Calculating Impact Factor: How Bibliographical Classification of Journal Items Affects the Impact Factor of Large and Small Journals , 2008, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[5]  Hannah Brown,et al.  How impact factors changed medical publishing—and science , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Scientists behaving badly , 2005, Nature.

[7]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[8]  B Narayan In reference to sources: peer-reviewed vs. non-peer-reviewed articles, proceedings, and unpublished data. , 2001, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  Brian McMahon,et al.  SHELX makes an impact. , 2010, Acta crystallographica. Section A, Foundations of crystallography.

[10]  Andrew P Kurmis,et al.  Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[11]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  The PageRank Citation Ranking : Bringing Order to the Web , 1999, WWW 1999.

[12]  Andrew Kohut,et al.  Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than A Decade Ago Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public Media , 2009 .

[13]  R Brian Haynes,et al.  Author self-citation in the diabetes literature , 2004, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[14]  Retraction Kiehntopf,et al.  Retraction , 1997, Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp..

[15]  Gareth Williams,et al.  Should we ditch impact factors? , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  Philip M. Davis,et al.  Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  Jong Yong Abdiel Foo,et al.  The Retrospective Analysis of Bibliographical Trends for Nine Biomedical Engineering Journals from 1999 to 2007 , 2009, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[18]  Christie Aschwanden,et al.  Seeking an International Dialogue on Research Integrity , 2007, Cell.

[19]  H. K. Schutte,et al.  Reaction of Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica on the Current Trend of Impact Factor Measures , 2007, Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica.

[20]  Carl T. Bergstrom Eigenfactor Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals , 2007 .

[21]  David Adam,et al.  Citation analysis: The counting house , 2002, Nature.

[22]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[23]  E. Garfield The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[24]  Eugenie Samuel Reich,et al.  The rise and fall of a physics fraudster , 2009 .

[25]  L. Egghe,et al.  Theory and practise of the g-index , 2006, Scientometrics.

[26]  H. Sox,et al.  Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[27]  E GARFIELD,et al.  Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. , 2006, Science.

[28]  Péter Kakuk,et al.  The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences , 2009, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[29]  Richard Smith,et al.  Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[30]  Stephen James Wilson,et al.  An Analysis on the Research Ethics Cases Managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Between 1997 and 2010 , 2012, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[31]  E. Garfield Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. 1955. , 1955, International journal of epidemiology.

[32]  G. Sheldrick A short history of SHELX. , 2008, Acta crystallographica. Section A, Foundations of crystallography.

[33]  Martin Schumacher,et al.  The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency , 2006, BMC medical research methodology.

[34]  R. Hobbs,et al.  Should we ditch impact factors? , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[35]  Jong Yong Abdiel Foo,et al.  Impact of Excessive Journal Self-Citations: A Case Study on the Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica Journal , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.