Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations

Herţeliu, Claudiu; Ausloos, Marcel; Ileanu, Bogdan Vasile; Rotundo, Giulia; Andrei, Tudorel

doi:10.3390/publications5020015

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Section 2.2 suggested the use of alternative nested H indexes based on linear and cubic fittings of standardized numbers of articles and citations, whereas Section 2.3 presented two-dimensional graphs based on alternative nested H and G indexes. These approaches would reduce incentives to engage in tactical or opportunistic behaviors in publication and citation by authors and journal editors [76][77][78][79][80][81][82], and should reduce discrimination against heterodox and interdisciplinary PHs that would be characterized by few citations and few articles [83,84]. Table 4 summarizes suggested warning symptoms that could be used to identify potentially questionable practices by editors and authors, although future experimental work based on analytical insights will be necessary to test whether these symptoms truly indicate manipulation of the PH quality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Production and Productivity for Characterizing an Author’s Publication History: Simple and Nested Gini’s and Hirsch’s Indexes Combined

Zagonari

2019

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, I developed operational versions of Gini’s and Hirsch’s indexes that can be applied to characterize each researcher’s publication history (PH) as heterodox, orthodox, and interdisciplinary. In addition, the new indicators warn against anomalies that potentially arise from tactical or opportunistic citation and publication behaviors by authors and editors, and can be calculated from readily available information. I split the original Hirsch index into nested indexes to isolate networking activity, as well as to distinguish scientific production (number of articles) from scientific productivity (rate of production), and used nested Gini indexes to identify intentional and successful intertopical and interdisciplinary research. I applied the most popular standardizations (i.e., per author and per year), and used simple methodologies (i.e., least-squares linear and cubic fitting, whole-career vs. subperiods, two-dimensional graphs). I provide three representative numerical examples based on an orthodox multidisciplinary PH, a heterodox PH from the social sciences, and an orthodox unidisciplinary PH from the physical sciences. Two additional numerical examples based on PHs from the life and health sciences show that the suggested PH characterization can be applied to different disciplines where different publication and citation practices prevail. Software is provided to help readers explore the use of these indicators.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Production and Productivity for Characterizing an Author’s Publication History: Simple and Nested Gini’s and Hirsch’s Indexes Combined

Zagonari

2019

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the same spirit, one might consider the effect of coercive citations in peer-review process efficiency. 28…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts - editors’ perspective

Nedić¹,

Drvenica

Ausloos

et al. 2018

JSCS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a model for measuring the efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts by editors. The approach employed is based on the assumption that editorial aim is to manage publication with high efficiency, employing the least amount of editorial resources. Efficiency is defined in this research as a measure based on 7 variables. An on-line survey was constructed and editors of journals originating from Serbia regularly publishing articles in the field of chemistry were invited to participate. An evaluation of the model is given based on responses from 24 journals and 50 editors. With this investigation we aimed to contribute to our understanding of the peer-review process and, possibly, offer a tool to improve the "efficiency" in journal editing. The proposed protocol may be adapted by other journals in order to assess the managing potential of editors.

show abstract

“…First, one of the authors has always a major contribution in preparing the paper, even in the case of publications with the alphabetical authorship. Second, it might happen that the alphabetical authorship is not intentional, in particular, when the number of authors is low [11]. In this case, the first author can get a bonus as the corresponding author.…”

Section: Combined Weighted Counting Schemementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers try to increase their ranking by complying with the presently accepted criteria. As a result, the number of citations is being increased by self-citations and coercive citations [11], and the number of published papers and the h -index are rising over time by the inflated number of multi-author publications and the number of authors [12–13]. As discussed by Papatheodorou et al [14], the inflation of authors is not just due to an increasing research complexity but it is also shaped by the interplay of ‘publish or perish’ pressures, collaborative needs and the visibility of research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fair ranking of researchers and research teams

Vavryčuk

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main drawback of ranking of researchers by the number of papers, citations or by the Hirsch index is ignoring the problem of distributing authorship among authors in multi-author publications. So far, the single-author or multi-author publications contribute to the publication record of a researcher equally. This full counting scheme is apparently unfair and causes unjust disproportions, in particular, if ranked researchers have distinctly different collaboration profiles. These disproportions are removed by less common fractional or authorship-weighted counting schemes, which can distribute the authorship credit more properly and suppress a tendency to unjustified inflation of co-authors. The urgent need of widely adopting a fair ranking scheme in practise is exemplified by analysing citation profiles of several highly-cited astronomers and astrophysicists. While the full counting scheme often leads to completely incorrect and misleading ranking, the fractional or authorship-weighted schemes are more accurate and applicable to ranking of researchers as well as research teams. In addition, they suppress differences in ranking among scientific disciplines. These more appropriate schemes should urgently be adopted by scientific publication databases as the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) or the Scopus (Elsevier).

show abstract

Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations

Cited by 20 publications

References 37 publications

Scientific Production and Productivity for Characterizing an Author’s Publication History: Simple and Nested Gini’s and Hirsch’s Indexes Combined

Scientific Production and Productivity for Characterizing an Author’s Publication History: Simple and Nested Gini’s and Hirsch’s Indexes Combined

Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts - editors’ perspective

Fair ranking of researchers and research teams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About