Volume 213 - Issue 5
Citation metrics for appraising scientists: misuse, gaming and proper use
Author: Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
Med J Aust 2020; 213 (5): 237-237.e1. || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50738
Published online: 7 September 2020
Published online: 7 September 2020
To the Editor: In their recent article, Ioannidis and Boyack focused on the misuse of author‐ and journal‐based metrics.1 The “predatory and other easy journals” they allude to are becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish2 in a widening continuum of journal quality that is seeing some overlap between predatory journals and indexed (eg, in Web of Science, Scopus or PubMed) journals that are traditionally perceived to be of peer‐review quality and whose scholarly content has been editorially authenticated.3 This increasing overlap between predatory and indexed journals is accentuated by an increasing lack of reproducibility, often revealed through post‐publication peer review of indexed journals.4 Predatory journals may also seek scholarly validation by allowing citation of their papers to infiltrate supposedly reputable databases.5 However, the continued inability to identify such journals invalidates calls to ban such entities or to not cite papers from currently blacklisted predatory journals, as was recently suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.6
Increasing retractions in the biomedical literature as a result of post‐publication peer review — which identifies errors and misuses such as the manipulation of citations discussed by Ioannidis and Boyack, including inflated and coercive self‐citation— affect author‐based metrics and journal‐based metrics differently. It is incumbent upon authors, editors and publishers to correct inflated, skewed or distorted author‐ and journal‐based metrics. To achieve this, retractions need to be destigmatised. Moreover, inflated author‐ and journal‐based metrics (eg, H‐index, Journal Impact Factor [Web of Science Group], CiteScore [Elsevier]) need to be adjusted with corrective, but not punitive, measures, to correct for imbalances and unfair rewards that may be associated with the attribution of citations of retracted (and thus potentially invalid) literature.7
Self‐citations that support stated claims are valid, independent of their number, and involve no ethical breaches. However, the misuse of self‐citations to manipulate author‐ and journal‐based metrics, such as citation cartels,8 raises ethical red flags. Independent of the possible ethical parameters of inflated or coercive self‐citation, such metrics can also be adjusted downwards to reflect the more balanced perspective of an author‐ or journal‐based metric.9 If the identity of predatory journals can be clearly determined and unanimously agreed upon, then the journal‐based metrics of valid, indexed scholarly journals that cite such journals should be adjusted accordingly.
Competing interests
No relevant disclosures.
References
- Ioannidis JPA, Boyack KW. Citation metrics for appraising scientists: misuse, gaming and proper use. Med J Aust 2020; 212: 247–249. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2020/212/6/citation-metrics-appraising-scientists-misuse-gaming-and-proper-use
- Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, et al. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature 2019; 576: 210–212.
- Cortegiani A, Ippolito M, Ingoglia G, et al. Inflated citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project. F1000 Res 2020; 9: 415.
- Eisner DA. Reproducibility of science: Fraud, impact factors and carelessness. J Mol Cell Cardiol 2018; 114: 364–368.
- Severin A, Low N. Readers beware! Predatory journals are infiltrating citation databases. Int J Public Health 2019; 64: 1123–1124.
- Teixeira da Silva JA. The ICMJE recommendations: challenges in fortifying publishing integrity. Irish J Med Sci 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-020-02227-1 [Epub ahead of print].
- Dobránszki J, Teixeira da Silva JA. Corrective factors for author‐ and journal‐based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions. Scientometrics 2019; 121: 387–398.
- Fister I Jr., Fister I, Perc M. Toward the discovery of citation cartels in citation networks. Front Physics 2016; 4: 49.
- Flatt JW, Blasimme A, Vayena E. Improving the measurement of scientific success by reporting a self‐citation index. Publications 2017; 5: 20.
Linked content
-
MJA Perspective: Citation metrics for appraising scientists: misuse, gaming and proper use