The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation

Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira da; Vuong, Quan‐Hoang

doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03960-9

Cited by 24 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of course, it is very difficult to develop effective approaches to the correct consideration of citations, but here it is possible to try and apply some new proposals that might improve the country's scientific practices (Teixeira da Silva & Vuong, 2021). For example, when applying for research grants, researchers may notify the organizers of the competition and refuse suspicious citations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of publications by authors of Ukrainian institutes in Scopus‐delisted titles

Nazarovets

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Ukraine, Scopus data are used to evaluate academics. Existing shortcomings in the Ukrainian evaluation system allow them to publish in titles that have been delisted from Scopus, and continue to use those papers as credible research output for evaluation. The purpose of this study was to analyse the publishing activity of Ukrainian institutions in Scopus-delisted titles (as of September 2021) in different fields between 2011 and 2020 and to attempt to appreciate how common this practice is among Ukrainian authors. Scopus was sourced to collect bibliographic and citations-related data, while SciVal was used to analyse these data. The findings suggest that for 17 Ukrainian institutions, papers from titles that have been delisted from Scopus still play an important part of the publication achievement of their employees. In particular, in the field of economics, econometrics and finance, 46.92% of Ukrainian papers were published in a title that was excluded from Scopus. Moreover, the analysis indicated that in two Ukrainian institutions, the level of citation of such papers significantly exceeds the average number of citations to Scopus-indexed papers in the same year and in the same field. Given that bibliometric indicators are also used for research assessment in other Eastern European countries, the results of this paper are applicable to a wider geographic context.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of publications by authors of Ukrainian institutes in Scopus‐delisted titles

Nazarovets

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If there is a backlog of errors, or if they are compounded, publishing may become unsustainable. There is also a separate and unique issue of an author’s right to refuse unwanted citations, i.e., to refuse to accommodate citations of literature that they feel is invalid, or to refuse to be cited by literature that they feel might misrepresent their findings or ideologies (Teixeira da Silva and Vuong 2021a ).…”

Section: Error Misconduct and Post-publication Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges

Silva

2022

J Gen Philos Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR’s editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.

show abstract

“…Moreover, research integrity and transparency should be maintained to keep the scientometric indices meaningful [48]. Some directions and suggestions to maintain scientific integrity in research have been provided in [48,49].…”

Section: Publishers' Criteria For Choosing Eicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between the Rankings of Top Bioinformatics and Medical Informatics Journals and the Scholarly Reputations of Chief Editors

Sazzed

2021

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scientometric indices, such as the journal Impact Factor (IF) or SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), often play a determining role while choosing a journal for possible publication. The Editor-in-Chief (EiC), also known as a lead editor or chief editor, usually decides the outcomes (e.g., accept, reject) of the submitted manuscripts taking the reviewer’s feedback into account. This study investigates the associations between the EiC’s scholarly reputation (i.e., citation-level metrics) and the rankings of top Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (BCB) and Medical Informatics (MI) journals. I consider three scholarly indices (i.e., citation, h-index, and i-10 index) of the EiC and four scientometric indices (i.e., h5-index, h5-median, impact factor, and SJR) of various journals. To study the correlation between scientometric indices of the EiC and journal, I apply Spearman (ρ) and Kendall (τ) correlation coefficients. Moreover, I employ machine learning (ML) models for the journal’s SJR and IF predictions leveraging the EiC’s scholarly reputation indices. The analysis reveals no correlation between the EiC’s scholarly achievement and the journal’s quantitative metrics. ML models yield high prediction errors for SJR and IF estimations, which suggests that the EiC’s scholarly indices are not good representations of the journal rankings.

show abstract

The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation

Cited by 24 publications

References 37 publications

Analysis of publications by authors of Ukrainian institutes in Scopus‐delisted titles

Analysis of publications by authors of Ukrainian institutes in Scopus‐delisted titles

A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges

Association between the Rankings of Top Bioinformatics and Medical Informatics Journals and the Scholarly Reputations of Chief Editors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About