Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: A cross-sectional study

Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Volumn 78, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 1-6

  Thombs, Brett D ^a,b   Levis, Alexander W ^a   Razykov, Ilya ^a,b   Syamchandra, Achyuth ^a   Leentjens, Albert F G ^c   Levenson, James L ^d   Lumley, Mark A ^e  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Journalology; Peer review; Publishing ethics; Self citation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA EXTRACTION; EVALUATION STUDY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; SELF CITATION; SELF REPORT; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TYPES OF ARTICLE; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; STANDARDS; TRENDS;

COERCION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 84916601444     PISSN: 00223999     EISSN: 18791360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.09.015     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 18:MR000016.
2. Souder L The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature. Learn Publ 2011, 24:55-72.
3. Sievert M, McKinin EJ, Johnson ED, Reid JC, Mitchell JA Beyond relevance - characteristics of key papers for clinicians: an exploratory study in an academic setting. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1996, 84:351-358.
4. Smith R Opening up BMJ peer review: a beginning that should lead to complete transparency. BMJ 1999, 318:4.
5. Atkinson M 'Peer review' culture. Sci Eng Ethics 2001, 7:193-204.
6. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 18:MR000016.
7. Ioannidis JAP, Tatsioni A, Karassa FB Who's afraid of reviewers' comments? Or, why anything can be published and anything can be cited. Eur J Clin Invest 2010, 40:285-287.
8. Hirsch JE An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 102:16569-16572.
9. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW Author self-citation in the general medicine literature. PLoS One 2011, 6:e20885.
10. Falagas ME, Kavvadia P "Eigenlob": self-citation in biomedical journals. FASEB J 2006, 20:1039-1042.
11. Wilhite AW, Fong EA Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science 2012, 335:542-543.
12. Martin BR Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and coercive citation in the age of research assessment. Res Policy 2013, 42:1005-1014.
13. Opthof T Inflation of impact factors by journal self-citation in cardiovascular science. Neth Heart J 2013, 21:163-165.
14. Straub DW, Anderson C Journal self-citation VI: forced journal self-citation - common, appropriate, ethical?. CAIS 2009, 25:57-66.
15. Falagas ME, Alexiou VG The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp 2008, 56:223-226.
16. Thombs B, Razykov I A solution to inappropriate self-citation via peer review. CMAJ 2012, 184:1864.
17. Committee on Publication Ethics COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers [Accessed March 13, 2014]. http://www.publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.
18. Resnik DB, Gutierrez-Ford C, Peddada S Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study. Sci Eng Ethics 2008, 14:305-310.
19. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication 2014, [www.icmje.org. Accessed March 13, 2014]. International Committee of Medical Journal (Ed.).
20. van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJW Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010, 341:c5729.