Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue JUN, 2013, Pages

  Brembs, Björn ^a   Button, Katherine ^b   Munafò, Marcus ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ACCURACY; COST; DATA BASE; EFFECT SIZE; ETHICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FRAUD; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; POLICY; PREDICTION; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETRACTED ARTICLE; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIAL PROBLEM; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; TRAINING; VALIDITY;

EID: 84933675226     PISSN: 16625161     EISSN: 16625161     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291     Document Type: Review

References (148)

1. Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature 415, 726-9.
2. Adler, N. J., and Harzing, a.-W. (2009). When Knowledge Wins: Transcending the Sense and Nonsense of Academic Rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education 8, 72-95.
3. Adler, R., Ewing, J., and Taylor, P. (2008). Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research: Citation Statistics (A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathemat. Available at: http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf.
4. Allen, L., Jones, C., Dolby, K., Lynn, D., and Walport, M. (2009). Looking for Landmarks: The Role of Expert Review and Bibliometric Analysis in Evaluating Scientific Publication Outputs. PLoS ONE 4, 8.
5. Anderson, M. S., Martinson, B. C., and De Vries, R. (2007). Normative dissonance in science: results from a national survey of u.s. Scientists. Journal of empirical research on human research ethics: JERHRE 2, 3-14.
6. Bachmann, T. (2011). Fair and Open Evaluation May Call for Temporarily Hidden Authorship, Caution When Counting the Votes, and Transparency of the Full Prepublication Procedure. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 5, 61.
7. Bain, C. R., and Myles, P. S. (2005). Relationship between journal impact factor and levels of evidence in anaesthesia. Anaesthesia and intensive care 33, 567-70.
8. Baker, M. (2012). Independent labs to verify high-profile papers. Nature News. doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11176 Available at: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature.2012.
9. Bauer, H. H. (2004). Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels. Jour. Scient. Explor. 18, 643-660.
10. Baylis, M., Gravenor, M., and Kao, R. (1999). Sprucing up one's impact factor. Nature 401, 322.
11. Begley, C. G., and Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531-533.
12. Bertamini, M., and Munafo, M. R. (2012). Bite-Size Science and Its Undesired Side Effects. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 67-71.
13. Beverungen, A., Bohm, S., and Land, C. (2012). The poverty of journal publishing. Organization 19, 929-938.
14. Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K., Osman, N., Ragone, A., Sierra, C., and Wassef, A. (2011). Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 5, 56.
15. Brown, E. N., and Ramaswamy, S. (2007). Quality of protein crystal structures. Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography 63, 941-50.
16. Brumback, R. A. (2012). "3. 2. 1. Impact [factor]: target [academic career] destroyed!": just another statistical casualty. Journal of child neurology 27, 1565-76.
17. Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., and Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 14, 365-376
18. Calcagno, V., Demoinet, E., Gollner, K., Guidi, L., Ruths, D., and De Mazancourt, C. (2012). Flows of Research Manuscripts Among Scientific Journals Reveal Hidden Submission Patterns. Science (New York, N.Y.) 338, 1065-1069.
19. Callaham, M. (2002). Journal Prestige, Publication Bias, and Other Characteristics Associated With Citation of Published Studies in Peer-Reviewed Journals. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 287, 2847-2850.
20. Carpenter, S. (2012). Psychology's Bold Initiative. Science 335, 1558-1561.
21. Casadevall, A., and Fang, F. C. (2012). Reforming science: methodological and cultural reforms. Infection and immunity 80, 891-6.
22. Chow, C. W., Haddad, K., Singh, G., and Wu, A. (2007). On Using Journal Rank to Proxy for an Article' s Contribution or Value. Issues in Accounting Education 22, 411-427.
23. Cokol, M., Iossifov, I., Rodriguez-Esteban, R., and Rzhetsky, A. (2007). How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO reports 8, 422-3.
24. Collaboration, O. S. (2012). An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 657-660.
25. Curry, S. (2009). Eye-opening Access. Occam's Typwriter: Reciprocal Space. Available at: http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2009/03/27/eye_opening_access/.
26. Van Dongen, S. (2011). Associations between asymmetry and human attractiveness: Possible direct effects of asymmetry and signatures of publication bias. Annals of human biology 38, 317-23.
27. Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E., Decullier, E., Easterbrook, P. J., Von Elm, E., Gamble, C., et al. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PloS one 3, e3081.
28. Editorial (2013). Beware the impact factor. Nature materials 12, 89.
29. Editorial (2005). Not-so-deep impact. Nature 435, 1003-1004. doi:10.1038/4351003b
30. Editorial (2006). The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS medicine 3, e291.
31. Editorial (2012). The Well-Behaved Scientist. Science 335, 285-285.
32. EuropeanCommission (2010). Science and Technology Report. 340/Wave 73.1 - TNS Opinion & Social
33. Evangelou, E., Siontis, K. C., Pfeiffer, T., and Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2012). Perceived information gain from randomized trials correlates with publication in high-impact factor journals. Journal of clinical epidemiology 65, 1274-81.
34. Eve, M. P. (2012). Tear it down, build it up: the Research Output Team, or the library-aspublisher. Insights: the UKSG journal 25, 158-162.
35. Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PloS one 5, e10271.
36. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one 4, e5738.
37. Fanelli, D. (2011). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90, 891-904.
38. Fang, F. C., and Casadevall, A. (2011). Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and immunity 79, 3855-9.
39. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., and Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 17028-33.
40. Finardi, U. (2013). Correlation between Journal Impact Factor and Citation Performance: An experimental study. Journal of Informetrics 7, 357-370.
41. Florian, R. V (2012). Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 31.
42. Frank, M. (2003). Impact factors: arbiter of excellence? Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 91, 4-6.
43. Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 161, 979-80.
44. Garwood, J. (2011). A conversation with Peter Lawrence, Cambridge. "The Heart of Research is Sick". LabTimes 2-2011, 24-31.
45. Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review 77, 167-187.
46. Gauchat, G. (2010). The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science 20, 751-770.
47. Ghosh, S. S., Klein, A., Avants, B., and Millman, K. J. (2012). Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 18.
48. Giles, J. (2007). Breeding cheats. Nature 445, 242-3.
49. Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Science or Art? How Aesthetic Standards Grease the Way Through the Publication Bottleneck but Undermine Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 562-571.
50. Goldacre, B. (2011). I foresee that nobody will do anything about this problem - Bad Science. Bad Science. Available at: http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/i-foresee-that-nobody-will-do-anything -about-this-problem
51. Gonon, F., Konsman, J.-P., Cohen, D., and Boraud, T. (2012). Why most biomedical findings Echoed by newspapers turn out to be false: the case of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. PloS one 7, e44275.
52. Gordon, M. D. (1982). Citation ranking versus subjective evaluation in the determination of journal hierachies in the social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 33, 55-57.
53. Hamilton, J. (2011). Debunked Science: Studies Take Heat In 2011. NPR. Available at: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/29/144431640/debunked-science-studies-take-he at-in-2011
54. Hartshorne, J. K., and Schachner, A. (2012). Tracking Replicability as a Method of Post-Publication Open Evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6, 8.
55. Hauser, J. R., and Katz, G. M. (1998). Metrics: you are what you measure! European Management Journal 16, 517-528.
56. Hegarty, P., and Walton, Z. (2012). The Consequences of Predicting Scientific Impact in Psychology Using Journal Impact Factors. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 72-78.
57. Hernán, M. A. (2009). Impact factor: a call to reason. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 20, 317-8; discussion 319-20.
58. Hönekopp, J., and Khan, J. (2011). Future publication success in science is better predicted by traditional measures than by the h index. Scientometrics 90, 843-853.
59. House of Commons (2004). Scientific Publications: Free for all? Tenth Report of Session 2003-2004, vol II: Written evidence, Appendix 138.
60. Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 63.
61. Ietto-Gillies, G. (2012). The evaluation of research papers in the XXI century. The Open Peer Discussion system of the World Economics Association. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 54.
62. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005a). Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 294, 218-28.
63. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005b). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2. e124
64. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2012). Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 645-654.
65. Ioannidis, J. P. A., and Panagiotou, O. A. (2011). Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 305, 2200-10.
66. Kelly, C. D. (2006). Replicating Empirical Research In Behavioral Ecology: How And Why It Should Be Done But Rarely Ever Is. The Quarterly Review of Biology 81, 221-236.
67. Kravitz, D. J., and Baker, C. I. (2011). Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 5, 55.
68. Kreiman, G., and Maunsell, J. H. R. (2011). Nine criteria for a measure of scientific output. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 5, 48.
69. Kriegeskorte, N. (2012). Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 79.
70. Kriegeskorte, N., Walther, A., and Deca, D. (2012). An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 94.
71. Kyrillidou, M., Morris, S., and Roebuck, G. (2012). ARL statistics. American Research Libraries Digital Publications. Available at: http://publications.arl.org/ARL_Statistics
72. Lau, S. L., and Samman, N. (2007). Levels of evidence and journal impact factor in oral and maxillofacial surgery. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 36, 1-5.
73. Lawrence, P. (2008). Lost in publication: how measurement harms science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8, 9-11.
74. Lawrence, P. A. (2002). Rank injustice. Nature 415, 835-6.
75. Lawrence, P. A. (2007). The mismeasurement of science. Current biology: CB 17, R583-5.
76. Lee, C. (2012). Open peer review by a selected-papers network. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 1.
77. Lehrer, J. (2010). The decline effect and the scientific method. New Yorker. Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer
78. Lin, J. (2012). Cracking Open the Scientific Process: "Open Science" Challenges Journal Tradition With Web Collaboration. New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/open-science-challenges-journa l-tradition-with-web-collaboration.html?pagewanted=all
79. Liu, S. (2006). Top Journals' Top Retraction Rates. Scientific Ethics 1, 92-93.
80. Lopez-Cozar, E. D., and Cabezas-Clavijo, A. (2013). Ranking journals: Could Google Scholar Metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago Journal Rank? ArXiv 1303.5870, 26.
81. Lozano, G. A., Larivière, V., and Gingras, Y. (2012). The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63, 2140-2145.
82. Lu, H., Zou, Q., Gu, H., Raichle, M. E., Stein, E. A., and Yang, Y. (2012). Rat brains also have a default mode network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 3979-84.
83. Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., and Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 537-542.
84. Miller, K. R. (2012). America's Darwin Problem. Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_12 69191.html
85. Moed, H. F., and Van Leeuwen, T. N. (1996). Impact factors can mislead. Nature 381, 186.
86. Moed, H. F., and Van Leeuwen, T. N. (1995). Improving the accuracy of institute for scientific information's journal impact factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46, 461-467.
87. Moed, H. F., Van Leeuwen, T. N., and Reedijk, J. (1996). A critical analysis of the journal impact factors ofAngewandte Chemie and the journal of the American Chemical Society inaccuracies in published impact factors based on overall citations only. Scientometrics 37, 105-116.
88. Møller, A. P., and Jennions, M. D. (2001). Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, 580-586.
89. Møller, A. P., Thornhill, R., and Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Direct and indirect tests for publication bias: asymmetry and sexual selection. Animal Behaviour 70, 497-506.
90. Munafò, M. R., Freimer, N. B., Ng, W., Ophoff, R., Veijola, J., Miettunen, J., Järvelin, M.-R., Taanila, A., and Flint, J. (2009). 5-HTTLPR genotype and anxiety-related personality traits: a meta-analysis and new data. American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics: the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics 150B, 271-81.
91. Munafò, M. R., Matheson, I. J., and Flint, J. (2007). Association of the DRD2 gene Taq1A polymorphism and alcoholism: a meta-analysis of case-control studies and evidence of publication bias. Molecular psychiatry 12, 454-61.
92. Nath, S. B., Marcus, S. C., and Druss, B. G. (2006). Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? The Medical journal of Australia 185, 152-4.
93. Van Noorden, R. (2013). Mathematicians aim to take publishers out of publishing. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2013.12243
94. Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature 478, 26-8.
95. Nosek, B. A., and Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication. Psychological Inquiry 23, 217-243.
96. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., and Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 615-631.
97. Nowotny, H. (2005). Science and society. High- and low-cost realities for science and society. Science (New York, N.Y.) 308, 1117-8.
98. Obremskey, W. T., Pappas, N., Attallah-Wasif, E., Tornetta, P., and Bhandari, M. (2005). Level of evidence in orthopaedic journals. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume 87, 2632-8.
99. Palmer, A. R. (2000). QUASI-REPLICATION AND THE CONTRACT OF ERROR: Lessons from Sex Ratios, Heritabilities and Fluctuating Asymmetry. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31, 441-480.
100. Popper, K. (1995). In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years. Routledge; New edition edition (December 20, 1995).
101. Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 33.
102. Priem, J. (2013). Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature 495, 437-440.
103. Priem, J., and Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Decoupling the scholarly journal. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 19.
104. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., and Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. ArXiv 1203.4745.
105. Prinz, F., Schlange, T., and Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature reviews. Drug discovery 10, 712.
106. Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O'Hare, A., Nightingale, P., and Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management. Research Policy 41, 1262-1282.
107. Reedijk, J. (1998). Sense and nonsense of science citation analyses: comments on the monopoly position of ISI and citation inaccuracies. Risks of possible misuse and biased citation and impact data. New Journal of Chemistry 22, 767-770.
108. Research Information Network (2008). Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system Research Information Network. Report commissioned by the Research Information Network (RIN). Available at: http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/a ctivities-costs-and-funding-flows-scholarly-commu
109. Roemer, R. C., and Borchardt, R. (2012). From bibliometrics to altmetrics: A changing scholarly landscape. College & Research Libraries News 73, 596-600.
110. Rossner, M., Van Epps, H., and Hill, E. (2007). Show me the data. The Journal of Cell Biology 179, 1091-1092.
111. Saha, S., Saint, S., and Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 91, 42-6.
112. Sandewall, E. (2012). Maintaining live discussion in two-stage open peer review. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 9.
113. Sarewitz, D. (2012). Beware the creeping cracks of bias. Nature 485, 149-149. Available at: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/485149a [Accessed May 10, 2012].
114. Sarewitz, D. (2013). Science must be seen to bridge the political divide. Nature 493, 7.
115. Schooler, J. (2011). Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature 470, 437
116. Scott, S., Kranz, J. E., Cole, J., Lincecum, J. M., Thompson, K., Kelly, N., Bostrom, A., Theodoss, J., Al-Nakhala, B. M., Vieira, F. G., et al. (2008). Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: official publication of the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Motor Neuron Diseases 9, 4-15.
117. Seglen, P. O. (1994). Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45, 1-11.
118. Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43, 628-638.
119. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314.
120. Shapin, S. (2008). The scientific life: a moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
121. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., and Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological science 22, 1359-66.
122. Simmons, L. W., Tomkins, J. L., Kotiaho, J. S., and Hunt, J. (1999). Fluctuating paradigm. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 266, 593-595.
123. Singh, G., Haddad, K. M., and Chow, C. W. (2007). Are Articles in "Top" Management Journals Necessarily of Higher Quality? Journal of Management Inquiry 16, 319-331.
124. Siontis, K. C. M., Evangelou, E., and Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2011). Magnitude of effects in clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals. International journal of epidemiology 40, 1280-91.
125. Sønderstrup-Andersen, E. M., and Sønderstrup-Andersen, H. H. K. (2008). An investigation into diabetes researcher's perceptions of the Journal Impact Factor - reconsidering evaluating research. Scientometrics 76, 391-406.
126. Song, F., Eastwood, A., Gilbody, S., and Duley, L. (1999). The role of electronic journals in reducing publication bias. Informatics for Health and Social Care 24, 223-229.
127. Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication. Organization Science 16, 180-200.
128. Statzner, B., and Resh, V. H. (2010). Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences. Freshwater Biology 55, 2639-2653.
129. Steen, R. G. (2011a). Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? Journal of medical ethics 37, 113-7.
130. Steen, R. G. (2011b). Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of medical ethics 37, 249-53.
131. Sutton, J. (2011). Psi study highlights replication problems. The Psychologist News. Available at: http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/blog/blogpost.cfm?threadid=1984&ca tid=48
132. Taylor, M., Perakakis, P., and Trachana, V. (2008). The siege of science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8, 17-40.
133. Todd, P., and Ladle, R. (2008). Hidden dangers of a 'citation culture'. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8, 13-16.
134. Tressoldi, P. E., Giofré, D., Sella, F., and Cumming, G. (2013). High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So. PloS one 8, e56180.
135. Tsikliras, A. (2008). Chasing after the high impact. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8, 45-47.
136. Upadhyay, J., Baker, S. J., Chandran, P., Miller, L., Lee, Y., Marek, G. J., Sakoglu, U., Chin, C.-L., Luo, F., Fox, G. B., et al. (2011). Default-mode-like network activation in awake rodents. PloS one 6, e27839.
137. Vanclay, J. K. (2011). Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics 92, 211-238.
138. Wager, E., and Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. Journal of medical ethics 37, 567-70.
139. Wagner, P. D. (2011). What's in a number? Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md.: 1985) 111: 951-953
140. Walther, A., and Van den Bosch, J. J. F. (2012). FOSE: a framework for open science evaluation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 32.
141. Weale, A. R., Bailey, M., and Lear, P. A. (2004). The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor. BMC medical research methodology 4, 14.
142. Welberg, L. (2012). Neuroimaging: Rats join the "default mode" club. Nature reviews. Neuroscience. 11: 223
143. Wicherts, J. M., Kievit, R. A., Bakker, M., and Borsboom, D. (2012). Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 20.
144. Yarkoni, T. (2012). Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 72.
145. Yong, E. (2012). Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature 485, 298-300.
146. Young, N. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., and Al-Ubaydli, O. (2008). Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS medicine 5, e201.
147. Yue, W., Wilson, C. S., and Boller, F. (2007). Peer assessment of journal quality in clinical neurology. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 95, 70-6.
148. Zimmermann, J., Roebroeck, A., Uludag, K., Sack, A., Formisano, E., Jansma, B., De Weerd, P., and Goebel, R. (2011). Network-based statistics for a community driven transparent publication process. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6, 11.