Problems with "natural selection of academic papers"

Scientometrics

Volumn 88, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 663-667

  Egghe, L ^a,b  

^a HASSELT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Commercial publishing; Open access; Peer review

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959653681     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0395-9     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College and Research Libraries, 65(5), 372-382.
2. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). The usefulness of peer review for selecting manuscripts for publication: A utility analysis taking as an example an high-impact journal. PloS ONE, 5(6), e11344.
3. Bornmann, L., & Egghe, L. (2011). Journal peer review as an information retrieval process. Preprint.
4. Davis, P. (2011). http://scholarlykitchen. sspnet. org/author/pmd8/.
5. Hernon, P., & Schwartz, C. (2011). Editorial. Modification of peer review? Library and Information Science Research, 33, 1-2.
6. Mandavilli, A. (2011). Trial by twitter. Blogs and tweets are ripping papers apart within days of publication, leaving researchers unsure how to react. Nature, 469, 286-287.
7. Meyer, C. A. (2010). Researcher tools for evaluating trustworthiness: CrossCheck plagiarism screening and CrossMark. Library Connect, 3(1), 7.
8. Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M., & Trachana, V. (2010). Natural selection of academic papers. Scientometrics, 85(2), 553-559.
9. Rousseau, R. (2006). After the journal impact factor and the web impact factor a referee factor enters the fray: Some comments. ISSI Newsletter, 2(2), 2-3.
10. Wilson, R., & Lancaster, J. (2006). Referee factor would reward a vital contribution. Nature, 441, 812.
11. http://www. publishingresearch. net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final. pdf.