Quantitative and qualitative analysis of editor behavior through maybe coercive citations

How much is the h-index of an editor of a well ranked journal improved due to citations which occur after his/her appointment? Scientific recognition within academia is widely measured nowadays by the number of citations or h-index. Our dataset is based on a sample of four editors from a well ranked journal (impact factor – IF – greater than 2). The target group consists of two editors who seem to benefit by their position through an increased citation number (and subsequently h-index) within journal. The total amount of citations for the target group is bigger than 600. The control group is formed by another set of two editors from the same journal whose relations between their positions and their citation records remain neutral. The total amount of citations for the control group is more than 1200. The timespan for which citations’ pattern has been studied is 1975-2015. Previous coercive citations for a journal benefit (increase its IF) has been signaled. To the best of our knowledge, this is a pioneering work on coercive citations for personal (editors’) benefit. Editorial teams should be aware about this type of potentially unethical behavior and act accordingly.

[1]  L. Waltman,et al.  A Large-Scale Analysis of Impact Factor Biased Journal Self-Citations , 2016, PloS one.

[2]  C. Haug,et al.  Peer-Review Fraud--Hacking the Scientific Publication Process. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Jorge E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship , 2009, Scientometrics.

[4]  Adam Marcus,et al.  Publishing: The peer-review scam , 2014, Nature.

[5]  A. Caelleigh.  Role of the journal editor in sustaining integrity in research , 1993, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[6]  Daniel Teodorescu,et al.  The growth of international collaboration in East European scholarly communities: a bibliometric analysis of journal articles published between 1989 and 2009 , 2011, Scientometrics.

[7]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  New developments related to the Hirsch index , 2006 .

[8]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  Probing the effect of author self-citations on h index: A case study of environmental engineering , 2011, J. Inf. Sci..

[9]  Tibor Braun,et al.  World Flash on Basic Research , 2005, Scientometrics.

[10]  Nabil Amara,et al.  What can university administrators do to increase the publication and citation scores of their faculty members? , 2015, Scientometrics.

[11]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[12]  Tsutomu Harada,et al.  Three steps in knowledge communication: the emergence of knowledge transformers , 2003 .

[13]  Daniel Teodorescu,et al.  Beyond the Impact Factor: measuring the international visibility of Romanian social sciences journals , 2016, Scientometrics.

[14]  Bruno S. Frey,et al.  Publishing as Prostitution? – Choosing Between One's Own Ideas and Academic Success , 2003 .

[15]  Roger Burrows,et al.  Living with the H-Index? Metric Assemblages in the Contemporary Academy , 2012 .

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

[17]  Menghui Li,et al.  Quantifying the influence of scientists and their publications: distinguishing between prestige and popularity , 2011, ArXiv.

[18]  Robert D. Tortora,et al.  Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet , 2009 .

[19]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis , 2010, Scientometrics.

[20]  Janusz Miskiewicz,et al.  Effects of Publications in Proceedings on the Measure of the Core Size of Coauthors , 2013, ArXiv.

[21]  J. Teixeira.  Postpublication Peer Review in Plant Science , 2014 .

[22]  David Adams,et al.  hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences , 2014, Scientometrics.

[23]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Creating and Disseminating Knowledge Among Organizational Scholars: The Role of Special Issues , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[24]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison , 2015, Scientometrics.

[25]  Hadi Salehi,et al.  Effective Strategies for Increasing Citation Frequency , 2013 .

[26]  Ranganatha Sitaram,et al.  Flagrant Misconduct of Reviewers and Editor: A Case Study , 2015, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[27]  David B. Allison,et al.  Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors , 2016, Nature.

[28]  Michael D. Kaplowitz,et al.  A Comparison of Web and Mail Survey Response Rates , 2004 .

[29]  Quirin Schiermeier,et al.  Self-publishing editor set to retire , 2008, Nature.

[30]  David B. Resnik,et al.  Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study , 2008, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[31]  J. Evers.  The sun is not hurried by early risers. , 2015, Human reproduction.

[32]  Richard Van Noorden.  Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers , 2014 .

[33]  S. Rogelberg,et al.  Catalyzing Ethical Behavior among Journal Editors in the Organizational Sciences and Beyond , 2014 .

[34]  Marcel Ausloos,et al.  Self-citations, co-authorships and keywords: A new approach to scientists’ field mobility? , 2007, Scientometrics.

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

[36]  Marcel Ausloos,et al.  Coherent measures of the impact of co-authors in peer review journals and in proceedings publications , 2015, ArXiv.

[37]  Giulia Rotundo,et al.  Black–Scholes–Schrödinger–Zipf–Mandelbrot model framework for improving a study of the coauthor core score , 2014 .

[38]  Marcel Ausloos,et al.  Assessing the true role of coauthors in the h-index measure of an author scientific impact , 2015, ArXiv.