The siege of science

Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 17-40

  Taylor, Michael ^a   Perakakis, Pandelis ^b   Trachana, Varvara ^c  

^a INSTITUTO DE ESTRUCTURA DE LA MATERIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^c CENTRO NACIONAL DE BIOTECNOLOGÍA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Academic journals; Bibliometric indices; Biomedicine; Evaluation; Open access; Power law; Publishing model; Quality

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; ALGORITHM; POWER LAW; PUBLISHING; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 44849139798     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16118014     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3354/esep00086     Document Type: Review

References (118)

1. Agres T (2005) When the line between science and business blurs. With conflicts of interest making headlines, can trust be restored? Scientist 19:42-47
2. Barabasi AL, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509-512
3. Barcinski MA (2003) Disruption to science in developing countries. Nature 423:480
4. Bauer HH (2004) Science in the 21st century: knowledge monopolies and research cartels. J Sci Explor 18: 643-660
5. Bergstrom CT (2007) Eigenfactor: measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News 68(5)
6. Bergstrom CT, Bergstrom TC (2004) The costs and benefits of site licences to academic journals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:897-902
7. Bergstrom TC (2001) Free labor for costly journals? J Econ Perspect 15:169-182
8. Bergstrom T, McAfee RP (1997) An open letter to all university presidents and provosts concerning increasingly expensive journals. Available online at: www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Journal/OpenLetter.pdf
9. Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Smith JA, Luce R (2005) Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: a comparison of download and citation data. Inf Process Manag 41: 1419-1440
10. Bollen J, Rodriguez MA, Van de Sompel H (2006) Journal status. Scientometrics 69:669-687
11. Bradford SC (1934) Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering - an illustrated weekly journal (London) 137:85-86
12. Brody TD (2006) Evaluating research impact through open access to scholarly communication. PhD thesis, University of Southampton
13. Brookfield J (2003) The system rewards a dishonest approach. Nature 422:259-261 PubMed doi:10.1038/422259a
14. Buela-Casal G, Perakakis P, Taylor M,. Checa P (2006) Measuring internationality: reflections and perspectives on academic journals. Scientometrics 67:45-65.
15. CAAT (Campaign Against the Arms Trade) (2007) Campaign success: Reed Elsevier to stop organising arm fairs. Available online at www.caat.org.uk/campaigns/reedelsevier.php
16. Calza L, Garbisa S (1995) Italian professorships. Nature 374:492
17. Campanario JM (2003) Coping with Peer Rejection. Nature 425:645. Also available online at: http://www2.uah.es/jmc/nobel.html
18. Campbell P (2008) Escape from the impact factor. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 8:5-7
19. Carr L, Harnad S (2005) Keystroke economy: a study of the time and effort involved in self-archiving - technical report. University of Southampton. Available online at: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/
20. Carr L, MacColl J (2005) IRRA (Institutional Repositories and Research Assessment) RAE software for institutional repositories-technical report. IRRA Project. Available online at: http://irra.eprints.org/white/
21. Chan L, Kirsop B (2001) Open archiving opportunities for developing countries: towards equitable distribution of global knowledge. Ariadne 30. Available online at: www.ariadne.ac.uk/isgue30/oai-chan/
22. Chan L, Cuplinskas D, Eisen M, Friend F, and others (2002). Budapest Open Access Initiative. Available online at: www.soros.org/openaccess/ read.shtml
23. Dalton R (2001) Peers under pressure. Nature 413:102-104
24. Darmoni SJ, Roussel F, Benichou. J, Thirion B, Pinhas N (2002) Reading factor: a new bibliometric criterion for managing digital libraries. J Med Libr Assoc 90:323-327
25. Delamothe T, Smith R (2001) PubMedCentral: creating an Aladdin's cave of ideas. BMJ 322:1-2
26. Diamond AM Jr (1986) What is a citation worth? J Human Resour 21:200-215
27. East JW (2006) Ranking journals in the humanities: an Australian case study. AARL 37(1):3-16
28. Egghe L (2006) Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics 69:131-152
29. Faloutsos M, Faloutsos P, Faloutsos C (1999) On power-law relationships of the internet topology. SIGCOMM 29: 251-262
30. Fassoulaki A, Paraskeva A, Papilas K, Karabinis G (2000) Self-citations in six anaesthesia journals and their significance in determining the impact factor. Br J Anaesth 84:266-269
31. Feder G, Rohde JE, Sebastián MS, Janlert U and others (2005) Reed Elsevier and the international arms trade. Lancet 366:889
32. Fried-Foster N, Gibbons S (2005) Understanding faculty to improve content recruitment for institutional repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 11(1). Available online at: www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/ 01foster.html
33. Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122:108-111
34. Garfield E (1972) Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178:471-479
35. Garfield E (1979) Citation indexing. John Wiley & Sons, New York
36. Garfield E (1990) How ISI selects journals for coverage: quantitative and qualitative considerations. Current Contents, 28 May. Available online at: www.garfield.library.upenn. edu/essays/v13pl85y1990:pdf
37. Garfield E (1998). Der Impact Faktor und seine richtige Anwendung. Unfallchirurg 101:413-414
38. Garfield E (2005) The agony and the ecstasy - the history and the meaning of the journal impact factor. Int Congr Peer Review Biomedical Publ, Chicago, IL, Sep 16. Available online at: www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdf
39. Garfield E, Sher IH (1963) New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation 14(3):195-201. Also available online at: www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/ essays/v6p492y1983.pdf
40. Giles J (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access - journal publishers lock horns with free-information movement. Nature 445:347. Available online at: www.nature.com/nature/journal/vv445/n7126/full/445347a.html
41. Gross PLK, Gross EM (1927) College libraries and chemical education. Science 66(1713):385-389
42. Guédon JC (2002) In Oldenburg's long shadow: librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing. Available online at: www.arl.org/resources/pubs/mmproceedings/ 138guedon.shtml
43. Hajjem C, Hamad S, Gingras Y (2005) Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increases research citation irnpact. IEEE Data Engineering Bull 28(4):39-47. Available online at: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/l1688/
44. Hall P (1998) The innovative milieu, in cities in civilization. Parthenon, New York
45. Hansen HF, Jorgensen BH (1995) Styring af forskning: kan forskningsindikatorer anvendes? Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen
46. Harnad S (1995) Universal FTP archives for esoteric science and scholarship: a subversive proposal. In: Okerson A, O'Donnell J (eds) Scholarly journals at the crossroads; a subversive proposal for electronic publishing. Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC
47. Harnad S (2001a) The self-archiving initiative: freeing the refereed research literature online. Nature 410:1024-1025. Available online at: www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html
48. Harnad S (2001b) For whom the gate tolls? How and why to free the refereed research literature online through author/institution self-archiving, now. Available online at: http://cogprints.org/1639/
49. Hamad S (2001c) Minotaur: six proposais for freeing the refereed literature online: a comparison. Ariadne 28. Available online at: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue28/minotaur/
50. Harnad S (2003) Open access to peer-reviewed research through author/ institution self-archiving: maximizing research impact by maximizing online access. In: Law D, Andrews J (eds) Digital libraries: Policy planning and practice. Ashgate Publishing, Southampton
51. Harnad S (2006a) Open choice is a Trojan Horse for open access mandates. SPARC Open Access Forum, Jun 28. Available online at: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5443.html
52. Harnad S (2006b) Publish or perish - self-archive to flourish: the green route to open access. ERCIM News 64
53. Harnad S (2007) Open access scientometrics and the UK Res 11th Annu Meet Int Soc Scientometrics and Informetrics, Madrid. Available online at: http://aridv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0703/0703131.pdf
54. Harnad S, Brody T, Vallieres F, Carr L and others (2004) The access/ impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Serials review 30(4). Available online at http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/
55. Hecht F, Hecht B, Sandberg AA (1998) The journal 'Impact Factor': a misnamed, misleading, misused measure. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 104:77-81
56. Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(46): 16569-16572
57. Hitchcock S, Bergmark D, Brody T, Gutteridge C, and others (2002) Open citation linking: the way forward. D-Lib 8(10). Available online at: www.dlib.org/dlib/october02/hitchcock/10hitchcock.html
58. Hofbauer R, Frass M, Gmeiner B, Kaye AD (2002) Euro-Factor (EF)TM - the European Journal Quality Factor: the new European 'scientific currency. VICER Publishing, Vienna
59. Horton R (2000) The controversy over genetically modified food exposes larger issues about public trust in science and the role of science in policymaking. Med J Aust 172: 148-149
60. Insall R (2003) Impact factors: target the funding bodies. Nature 423:585
61. Jennings C (1998) Citation data: the wrong impact? Nat Neurosci 1:641-642
62. Jeong H, Mason SP, Barabasi AL, Oltvai ZN (2001) Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature 411:41-42
63. Jiménez-Contreras E, Delgado E, López-Cózar E, Ruiz-Pérez R, Fernández VM (2002) Impact-factor rewards affect Spanish research. Nature 417:898. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/417898b
64. Kelly CD, Jennions MD (2006) The h-index and career assessment by numbers. Trends Ecol Evol 21:167-170
65. Kirby R (1997) Letter to Elsevier officers. Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues 199:1
66. Kurtz MJ (2004) Restrictive access policies cut readership of electronic research journal articles by a factor of two. Available online at: http://opcit.eprints.org/feb19oa/kurtz.pdf
67. Kyrillidou M, Young M (2004) ARL Statistics 2003-04. Tech rep 2004. Available online at: http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm-doc/Cooperatives_v1.pdf
68. Laherrere J, Sornette D (1998) Stretched exponential distributions in nature and economy: 'Fat tails' with characteristic scales. Eur Phys JB 2:525-539
69. Lavalette D (1996) Facteur d'impact: impartialité ou impuissance? Internal Report, INSERM U350, Institut Curie, Paris
70. Lawrence PA (2003) The politics of publication. Authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research. Nature 422:259-261
71. Lawrence S (2001) Online or invisible? Nature 411:521
72. Lawrence S, Giles CL, Bollacker K (1999) Digital libraries and autonomous citation indexing. IEEE Computer 32:67-71
73. Lehmann S, Jackson AD, Lautrup B (2005) Life, death and preferential attachment. Europhys Lett 69:298-303
74. Lessig L (2006) Crushing Competition. Wired Issue 14:05
75. Liljeros F, Edling CR, Nunes-Amaral LA, Stanley HE, Åberg Y (2001) The web of human sexual contacts. Nature 411:907-908
76. Linardi PM, Coelho PM, Costa HM (1996) The 'impact factor' as a criterion for the quality of the scientific production is a relative, not absolute, measure. Braz J Med Biol Res 29:555-561
77. Lipscomb CE (2001) Mergers in the publishing industry. Bull Med Libr Assoc 89:307-308
78. Lotka AJ (1926) The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Wash Acad Sci 16:317-324
79. Malakoff D (2000) Librarians seek to block merger of scientific publishing giants. Science 290:910-911
80. McNulty M (1979) Publishing, book. In: ALA yearbook: a review of library events, Vol 4. American Library Association, Chicago, IL, p 225-228
81. Miller M (2004) Faculty Senate discusses journal fees. Available online at: http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/2/6/facSenDiscussesJournalFees
82. Moed HF, Van Leeuwen TN (2005) Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer, New York
83. Morais R (2002) Double Dutch no-longer. Forbes Magazine no. 10, 11th Nov
84. Moses H III, Dorsey ER, Matheson DHM, Thier SO,(2005) Financial anatomy of biomedical research. JAMA 294: 1333-1342
85. Nature (2005) Editorial: Not-so-deep impact. Nature 435: 1003-1004, 23 Jun
86. Newman MEJ (2005) Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law. Contemp Phys 46:323-351.
87. Payne D (2004) Canadian research compromised? The Scientist Daily News, Nov 24. Available online at: www.thescientist.com/news/20041124/02
88. Perakakis P, Taylor M, Buela-Casal G, Checa P (2006) A neuro-fuzzy system to calculate the journal internationality index. Proc CEDI2005 Symp Fuzzy Logic and Soft Comp, p 157-163. Available online at: http://damir.iem.csic.es/~michael/OA/perakakis_et_al_2005.pdf
89. Pirsig RM (1974) Zen and the art of motorcyle maintenance. William Morrow, New York
90. Redner S (1998) How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. Eur Phys J B 4(2): 131-134. Available online at: http://arXiv.org/condmat/9804163
91. Reed Elsevier (2007) Press release: Reed Elsevier to exit the defence exhibitions sector. Available online at: www.reed-elsevier.com/ index.cfm?articleid=2084
92. Rehmann U (2004). Math journal price survey, based on AMS 2007 data. Available online at: www.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/~rehmann/BIB/AMS/ Price_per_Page.html
93. Russo M (2006) A world of opportunity and influence. J Assoc Lab Autom 11:A6-A7
94. Schmid JA (2003) Cover the eyes of Lady Justice - an appeal for double-blind peer reviewing. EMBO Rep 4:734-736
95. SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) (2000) Declaring independence: a guide to creating community-controlled science journals. SPARC Publications, Washington
96. Scully C, Lodge H (2005) Impact factors and their significance; overrated or misused? Br Dent J 198:391-393
97. Seglen PO (1992) The skewness of science. J Am Soc Inf Sci 43:628-638
98. Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314:497-502. Also available online at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497
99. Sher IH, Garfield E (1966) New tools for improving and evaluating the effectiveness of research. In: Yovits MC, Gilford DM, Wilcox RH, Staveley E, Lemer HD (eds) Research program effectiveness, proceedings of the conference sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, Washington, DC, Jul 27-29, 1965. Gordon and Breach, New York, p 135-146
100. Smith JWT (2004) The importance of access to academic publications for the developing world and the implications of the latest developments in academic publishing, 15-17 September 2004. Presented at the ICCC Int Conf Computer Comm: Core Platform for the Implementation of the Editonal responsibility: Howard Browman, Storebø, Norway and Konstantinos Stergiou, Thessalonik, Greece Computer Society. Available online at: http://library.kent.ac.uk/library/papers/jwts/ develop.htm
101. Stafford T, Atiyah M, Banerjee B and others (2007) Ethics before arms. Times Higher Education, Mar 2:15
102. Stergiou KI, Tsikliras AC (2006) Underrepresentation of regional ecological research output by bibliometric indices. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 2006:15-17. Available online at: www.int-res.com/articles/esep/ 2006/E68.pdf
103. Suber P (2006). Lists related to the open access movement. Nov 12. Available online at: www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/lists.htm#actions
104. Sutherland J (1999) Who owns John Sutherland? London Review of Books 7, London
105. Taubes G (1993) Measure for measure in science. Science 260:884-886
106. Thomson ISI (2004) Editorial, The Thomson Scientific journal selection process. Available online at: http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/free/ essays/selectionofmaterial/journalselection/
107. Tuck A (2003) Impact factors: a tool of the sterile audit culture: Stalked by accountants, unaware of pre-Internet work, how can young scientists thrive? Nature 424:14
108. US Census Bureau (1999) Statistical abstract of the United States, science and technology. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC
109. Vaidya JS (2005) V-index: a fairer index to quantify an individual's research output capacity. BMJ 331:1339-c-1340-c
110. Van de Sompel H, Lagoze C (2000) The Santa Fe convention of the open archives initiative. D-Lib Magazine, 6(2). Available online at: www.dlib.org/dlib/february00/vandesompel-oai/02vandesompel-oai.html
111. Van de Sompel H, Lagoze C (2002) Notes from the interoperability front: a progress report on the open archives initiative. In: ECDL 2002 Proc 6th Eur Conf Res Adv Tech Digital Libraries. Springer-Verlag, London, p 144-157
112. Vinkler P (1986) Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics 10: 157-177
113. Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS (2006) Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 4:13
114. Waltz E (1998) Information warfare principles and operations. Artech House Publishers, London
115. Weiss R (2007) Publishing group hires 'Pit Bull of PR'. Washington Post, Jan 26:19
116. Weisstein EW (2001) What happened to Mathworld. Available online at: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/erics_commentary.html
117. Wysocki B (2005) Peer pressure: scholarly journals premier status is diluted by web. Wall Street Journal, 23 May
118. Zipf GK (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA