Evaluation by Citation: Trends in Publication Behavior, Evaluation Criteria, and the Strive for High Impact Publications

Criteria for the evaluation of most scholars’ work have recently received wider attention due to high-profile cases of scientific misconduct which are perceived to be linked to these criteria. However, in the competition for career advancement and funding opportunities almost all scholars are subjected to the same criteria. Therefore these evaluation criteria act as ‘switchmen’, determining the tracks along which scholarly work is pushed by the dynamic interplay of interests of both scholars and their institutions. Currently one of the most important criteria is the impact of publications. In this research, the extent to which publish or perish, a long standing evaluation criterion, led to scientific misconduct is examined briefly. After this the strive for high impact publications will be examined, firstly by identifying the period in which this became an important evaluation criterion, secondly by looking at variables contributing to the impact of scholarly papers by means of a non-structured literature study, and lastly by combining these data into a quantitative analysis.

[1]  Anne Beaulieu,et al.  Introduction to Virtual Knowledge , 2013 .

[2]  R. Perrucci,et al.  From Little Science to Big Science , 2017 .

[3]  N Wade,et al.  Citation analysis: a new tool for science administrators. , 1975, Science.

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

[5]  J Matías-Guiu,et al.  [Fraud and misconduct in scientific publications]. , 2010, Neurologia.

[6]  Liviu Andreescu,et al.  Self-Plagiarism in Academic Publishing: The Anatomy of a Misnomer , 2012, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[7]  W. Levelt,et al.  Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel , 2012 .

[8]  Gregory D. Webster,et al.  Hot Topics and Popular Papers in Evolutionary Psychology: Analyses of Title Words and Citation Counts in Evolution and Human Behavior, 1979 – 2008 , 2009 .

[9]  Elizabeth S. Vieira,et al.  Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[10]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[11]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Daren Yu,et al.  Discovery of factors influencing citation impact based on a soft fuzzy rough set model , 2012, Scientometrics.

[13]  A. Roland,et al.  Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. , 1995 .

[14]  G. Lenski,et al.  Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology , 1974 .

[15]  David B Elliott.  Salami slicing and the SPU: Publish or Perish? , 2013, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[16]  Lisa M. D'Souza,et al.  Genome sequence of the Brown Norway rat yields insights into mammalian evolution , 2004, Nature.

[17]  Sally Wyatt,et al.  What a difference a colon makes: how superficial factors influence subsequent citation , 2013, Scientometrics.

[18]  M. Weber.  Science as a Vocation , 1919 .

[19]  D0 Collaboration.  A precision measurement of the mass of the top quark , 2004, Nature.

[20]  W. Broad.  The publishing game: getting more for less. , 1981, Science.

[21]  K. Frenken,et al.  The citation impact of research collaborations : the case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988-2002) , 2005 .

[22]  S. Hewa.  Medical technology: A pandora's box? , 1994, The Journal of medical humanities.

[23]  P. Gross,et al.  COLLEGE LIBRARIES AND CHEMICAL EDUCATION. , 1927, Science.

[24]  Erik von Elm,et al.  Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. , 2004, JAMA.

[25]  Krishna Regmi,et al.  Ethical and Legal Issues in Publication and Dissemination of Scholarly Knowledge: A Summary of the Published Evidence , 2011 .

[26]  Sam Wilson,et al.  What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology , 2008, Scientometrics.

[27]  Khaled Moustafa,et al.  The Disaster of the Impact Factor , 2015, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[28]  T. Whalen,et al.  Communicating Science: The Scientific Article From the 17th Century to the Present , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[29]  E. Garfield,et al.  Citation indexes for science. , 1956, Science.

[30]  M. HamidR.Jamali,et al.  Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citations , 2011, Scientometrics.

[31]  Jorge Matías-Guiu,et al.  Fraude y conductas inapropiadas en las publicaciones científicas , 2010 .

[32]  Mounir Errami,et al.  A tale of two citations , 2008, Nature.

[33]  M. Weber,et al.  The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism , 1937 .

[34]  Bruno Ledergerber,et al.  Predictors of trend in CD4-positive T-cell count and mortality among HIV-1-infected individuals with virological failure to all three antiretroviral-drug classes , 2004, The Lancet.

[35]  T. Jacques,et al.  The impact of article titles on citation hits: an analysis of general and specialist medical journals , 2010, JRSM short reports.

[36]  Giuliano Franco,et al.  Research Evaluation and Competition for Academic Positions in Occupational Medicine , 2013, Archives of environmental & occupational health.

[37]  Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque,et al.  Citation behavior in popular scientific papers: what is behind obscure citations? The case of ethnobotany , 2012, Scientometrics.

[38]  John Hudson,et al.  Be known by the company you keep: Citations — quality or chance? , 2007, Scientometrics.

[39]  Brian C. Martinson,et al.  The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships , 2007, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[40]  R. Flesch.  A new readability yardstick. , 1948, The Journal of applied psychology.

[41]  Malhar N. Kumar.  A Review of the Types of Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical Research , 2008 .

[42]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? , 2004, Scientometrics.

[43]  Martin Weber,et al.  The social psychology of world religions , 1970 .

[44]  Aldo Geuna,et al.  The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are There Negative Unintended Consequences? , 2001 .

[45]  Rob Kling,et al.  Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism , 1996 .

[46]  J S Tsafrir,et al.  Using the citation index to assess performance. , 1990, BMJ.