The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor

Forensic Science International

Volumn 165, Issue 2-3, 2007, Pages 115-128

  Jones, Alan Wayne ^a  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Authorship; Bibliometrics; Forensic science journals; Impact factors; Peer review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA BASE; FORENSIC MEDICINE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; GERMANY; LAW SUIT; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SOCIAL MEDICINE; WRITING;

EID: 33846052286     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.05.013     Document Type: Article

References (119)

1. Abbasi K., Butterfield M., Connor J., Delamothe T., et al. Four futures for scientific and medical publishing. BMJ 325 (2002) 1472-1481
2. Lawrence P.A. The politics of publication. Nature 422 (2003) 259-261
3. Wu R. Making an impact. Nature 428 (2004) 206-207
4. In: Jones A.H., and McLellan F. (Eds). Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication (2000), The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
5. Angell M. Publish or perish: a proposal. Ann. Intern. Med. 104 (1986) 261-262
6. Horton R. A fair reward. Lancet 352 (1998) 892
7. Riesenberg D., and Lundberg G.D. The order of authorship. Who's on first. JAMA 264 (1990) 1857
8. Jones A.W. Some thoughts and reflections on authorship. Alcohol Alcohol 31 (1996) 11-15
9. Relman A.S. Responsibilities of authorship-where does the buck stop. N. Engl. J. Med. 310 (1984) 1048-1049
10. Adam D. The counting house. Nature 415 (2002) 726-729
11. Williams G. Misleading, unscientific, and unjust; the United Kingdom's research assessment exercise. BMJ 316 (1998) 1079-1082
12. Tomlinson S. The research assessment exercise and medical research. BMJ 320 (2000) 636-639
13. Smith R. Unscientific practice flourishes in science. BMJ 316 (1998) 1036
14. Drummer O., Forrest A.R., Goldberger B., Karch S.B., et al. Forensic science in the dock. BMJ 329 (2004) 636-637
15. Erzinclioglu Z. British forensic science in the dock. Nature 392 (1998) 859-860
16. Clark M.J. Historical keywords-forensic. Lancet 366 (2005) 1351
17. Deforest P.R., Gaensslen R.E., and Lee H.C. Forensic Science-An Introduction to Criminalistics (1983), McGraw-Hill Co., New York
18. Saferstein R. Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science. 4th ed. (1977), Prentice hall, New Jersey
19. Kind S.S. The Scientific Investigation of Crime (1987), The Forensic Science Society, Harrogate, North Yorkshire
20. Püschel K., Lach H., Türk E., and Pollak S. The centenary of the German Association of legal medicine-from its foundation in 1904 to 21st century legal medicine, organs of publication. Forensic Sci. Int. 144 (2004) 285-288
21. Keil W., Berzlanovich A., and Madea B. Text books on legal medicine in the German-speaking countries. Forensic Sci. Int. 144 (2004) 289-302
22. Orfila M.J.B. Traité des poisons (1814), Crochard, Paris
23. Gaensslen R.E. The journal of forensic sciences. In: Field K.S. (Ed). History of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences: 50 years of progress, 1948-1998 (1998), American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia 117-121
24. Jones A.W. In: Payne-James J., Byard R.W., Corey T.S., and Henderson C. (Eds). Forensic Journals-Bibliometrics and Journal Impact Factors. Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine vol. II (2005), Elsevier, Oxford 335-345
25. Disney R.H.J. Fraudulent forensic scientists. J. Med. Leg. Droit. Med. 45 (2002) 225-230
26. Jones A.W. The impact of forensic science journals. Forensic Sci. Int. 62 (1993) 173-178
27. Jones A.W. Impact factors of forensic science and toxicology journals-what do the numbers really mean?. Forensic Sci. Int. 133 (2003) 1-8
28. Jones A.W. Which articles and which topics in the forensic sciences are most highly cited. Sci. Justice 45 (2005) 174-180
29. Jones A.W. Crème de la crème in forensic science and legal medicine-the most highly cited articles, authors and journals 1981-2003. Int. J. Legal Med. 119 (2005) 59-65
30. In: Siegel J.A., Saukko P.J., and Knupfer G.-C. (Eds). Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences vols. I-III (2005), Elsevier, Oxford 1-1440
31. In: Payne-James J., Byard R.W., Corey T.S., and Henderson C. (Eds). Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine vols. I-IV (2005), Elsevier, Oxford 1-2563
32. Gerchow J. Editorial. Blutalkohol 38 (2001) 127-128
33. Garfield E. Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ 161 (1999) 979-980
34. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 295 (2006) 90-93
35. Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved?. BMJ 313 (1996) 411-413
36. Garfield E. Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation. Science 122 (1955) 108-111
37. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178 (1972) 471-479
38. Garfield E. When to cite. Lib. Q. 66 (1996) 449-458
39. Opthof T. Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovasc. Res. 33 (1997) 1-7
40. Kurmis A.P. Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 85A (2003) 2449-2454
41. Moed H.F. The impact factors debate: the ISI's uses and limits. Nature 415 (2002) 731-732
42. Jennings C. Citation data. The wrong impact. Neuroendocrinol. Lett. 20 (1999) 7-10
43. Seglen P.O. Citation and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality. Allergy 52 (1997) 1050-1056
44. Seglen P.O. Citation and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthop. Scand. 69 (1998) 224-229
45. Seglen P.O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314 (1997) 498-502
46. Hecht F., Hecht B.K., and Sandberg A.A. The journal impact factor: a misnamed, misleading, misused measure. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 104 (1998) 77-81
47. Coleman R. Impact factors: use and abuse in biomedical research. Anat. Rec. 257 (1999) 54-57
48. Lundberg G. The omnipotent science citation index impact factor. MJA 178 (2003) 253-254
49. Joseph K.S., and Hoey J. CMAJ's impact factor: room for recalculation. CMAJ 161 (1999) 977-978
50. Jones A.W. Mode of classification of source material as citable items skews journal impact factor calculations. Scand. J. Clin. Lab. Invest. 65 (2005) 623-625
51. Moed H.F., and Van Leeuwen T.N. Improving the accuracy of Institute for Scientific Information's journal impact factors. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. 46 (1995) 461-467
52. Glänzel W., and Moed H.F. Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics 53 (2002) 171-193
53. Bloch S., and Walter G. The impact factor: time for change. Aust. N.Z.J. Psychiatry 35 (2001) 563-568
54. Walter G., Bloch S., Hunt G., and Fisher K. Counting on citations. A flawed way to measure quality. MJA 178 (2003) 280-281
55. Hopkin K. Most highly cited. The Scientist 20 (2005) 22-23
56. Kresge N., Simoni R.D., and Hill R.L. The most highly cited paper in publishing history, protein determination by Oliver H. Lowry. J. Biol. Chem. 280 (2005) e26-e28
57. DeAngelis C.D., and Fontanarosa P.B. Thank you, JAMA peer reviewers and authors. JAMA 295 (2006) 1171-1172
58. Laine C., and Mulrow C. Peer review: integral to science and indispensable to Annals. Ann. Intern. Med. 139 (2003) 1038-1040
59. Giles J. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process. Nature 439 (2006) 252
60. Wenneras C., and Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature 387 (1997) 341-343
61. Chubin O.E., and Hackett E.J. Peerless Science-Peer Review and US Science Policy (1990), State University of New York Press, New York
62. Service R.F. Bell labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data. Science 298 (2002) 30-31
63. Cho M.K., McGee G., and Magnus D. Lessons from the stem cell scandal. Science 311 (2006) 614-615
64. Snyder E.Y., and Loring J.F. Beyond fraud-stem cell research continues. N. Engl. J. Med. 354 (2006) 321-324
65. White C. Suspected research fraud: difficulties in getting at the truth. BMJ 331 (2005) 281-288
66. Marris E. Doctor admits Lancet study is fiction. Nature 439 (2006) 248-249
67. Dalton R. The stars who fell to earth. Nature 420 (2002) 728-729
68. Garfield E. How ISI selects journals for coverage: quantitative and qualitative considerations. Current Contents (1990) pp. 5-13
69. Perkel J.M. The future of citation analysis. The Scientist 19 (2005) 24-26
70. Gibbs W.W. Lost science in the third world. Sci. Am. 283 (1995) 76-84
71. Kronick D.A. Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism. JAMA 263 (1990) 1321-1322
72. Hojat M., Gonnella J.S., and Caelleigh A.S. Impartial judgment by the gatekeepers of science fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv. Health Sci. Edu. 8 (2003) 75-96
73. Brady J.P. Journal referees: gatekeepers of science. Biol. Psychiat. 20 (1985) 823
74. Opthof T., Coronel R., and Janse M.J. Where do peer reviewers come from?. Cardiovasc. Res. 46 (2000) 1-13
75. In: Godlee F., and Jefferson T. (Eds). Peer review in health sciences (1999), BMJ Books, London
76. Reidenberg J.W. Improving peer review: a guide for reviewers of biomedical research. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 72 (2002) 469-473
77. Rowland F. The peer-review process. Learned Publ. 15 (2002) 247-258
78. Davidoff F. Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind leading the blinded. Ann. Intern. Med. 128 (1998) 66-68
79. Dimoliatis I. Should peer reviewers of papers have their names published. BMJ 328 (2004) 1267
80. Dalton R. Peers under pressure. Nature 413 (2001) 102-104
81. Cho M.K., Justice A.C., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A., et al. Masking author identity in peer review. JAMA 280 (1998) 23-45
82. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 318 (1999) 4-5
83. Wessely S., Brugha T., Cowen P., Smith L., and Psykel E. Do authors know who refereed their paper? A questionnaire survey. BMJ 313 (1996) 1185.11
84. Tamber P.S., Godlee F., and Newmark P. Open access to peer reviewed research-making it happen. Lancet 362 (2003) 1575-1577
85. Rennie D., Flanagin A., and Yank V. The contributions of authors. JAMA 284 (2000) 89-91
86. Anonymous (editorial). Games people play with authors names. Nature 387 (1997) 831
87. Chambers R., Boath E., and Chambers S. The A to Z of authorship analysis of influence of initial letter of surname on order of authorship. BMJ 323 (2001) 1460-1461
88. Erlen J.A., Siminoff L.A., Sereika S.M., and Suttopn L.B. Multiple authorship: issues and recommendations. J. Prof. Nurs. 13 (1997) 262-270
89. Hoey J. Who wrote this paper anyway?. CMAJ 163 (2000) 716-717
90. Rennie D., and Flanagin A. Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. JAMA 271 (1994) 469-471
91. Nagi S., Gold J.L., Gill S.S., and Rochon P.A. Haunted manuscripts: ghost authorship in the medical literature. Acc. Res. 12 (2005) 103-114
92. Reidenberg J.W. Unmasking ghost writers. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 70 (2001) 208-209
93. Flanagin A., Carcy L.A., Fontanarosa P.B., Pace S.G., et al. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 280 (1998) 222-224
94. King Jr. J.T. How many neurosurgeons does it take to write a research article? Authorship proliferation in neurosurgical research. Neurosurgery 47 (2000) 435-440
95. Kassirer J.P., and Angell M. On authorship and acknowledgement. N. Engl. J. Med. 325 (1991) 1510-1512
96. Lee Giles C., and Council I.G. Who gets acknowledged: measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgement indexing. PNAS 101 (2004) 17599-17604
97. Rennie D., Yank V., and Emanuel L. When authorship fails-a proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA 278 (1997) 579-585
98. Byard R.W., and Tsokos M. Research, publishing and forensic pathology. Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol. 1 (2005) 237-238
99. Culliton B.J. Scientific "experts" and the law. Nat. Med. 3 (1997) 123
100. Angell M. Science on trial (1997), W.W. Norton & Company, London
101. Deahl M. Smoke, mirrors and Gulf war illness. Lancet 365 (2005) 635-638
102. Foster K.R., and Huber P.W. Judging science: scientific knowledge and the Federal Courts (1999), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
103. Montgomery C. Forensic science in the trial of Sally Clark. Med. Sci. Law 44 (2004) 185-188
104. Hey E. Suspected child abuse: the potential for justice to miscarry. BMJ 327 (2003) 299-330
105. Forensic Science on Trial, Seventh report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology of the United Kingdom Parliament, HC 96-1 and HS 96-11, 2005.
106. Kaufman H.H. The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?. Sci. Justice 41 (2001) 7-20
107. Anonymous (editorial). Criteria for science in the courts. Nature 362 (1993) 481
108. Tobin M.J. Rigor of peer review and the standing of a journal. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 166 (2002) 1013-1014
109. Altman D.G. Statistical reviewing for medical journals. Stat. Med. 17 (1998) 2661-2674
110. Bacchetti P. Peer review of statistics in medical research. The other problem. BMJ 321 (2002) 1271-1273
111. Gardner M.J., Machin D., and Campbell M.J. Use of check lists in assessing the statistical content of medical studies. BMJ 292 (1986) 810-812
112. Frank M. Impact factors-arbiter of excellence. J. Med. Lib. Assoc. 91 (2003) 4-6
113. Garfield E. Use of journal citation reports and journal performance indicators in measuring short and long term journal impact. Croat. Med. J. 41 (2000) 368-374
114. Brettell T.A., Butler J.M., and Saferstein R. Forensic science. Anal. Chem. 77 (2005) 3839-3860
115. Jones A.W. Citation trends and practices in the Journal of Forensic Sciences as documented by ISI's journal citation report. J. Forensic Sci. 43 (1998) 439-444
116. Huth E.J. Scope-adjusted impact factor. J. Med. Lib. Assoc. 91 (2003) 28
117. Horton R. 21st century biomedical journals: failures and futures. Lancet 362 (2003) 1510-1512
118. Frank M. Access to the scientific literature-a difficult balance. N. Engl. J. Med. 354 (2006) 1552-1555
119. In: Cronin B., and Atkins H.B. (Eds). The Web of Knowledge-A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, ASIS Monograph Series (2000), Information Today Inc., Medford