Science deserves to be judged by its contents, not by its wrapping: Revisiting Seglen's work on journal impact and research evaluation

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2017, Pages

  Zhang, Lin ^a,b   Rousseau, Ronald ^c   Sivertsen, Gunnar ^d  

^a NORTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF WATER RESOURCES AND ELECTRIC POWER   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^d Studies in Innovation Research and Education (NIFU STEP)   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIST; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BIBLIOMETRICS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PERSONNEL; PROCEDURES; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH; SCIENCE; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENCE;

EID: 85016332195     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174205     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Seglen PO. From bad to worse: evaluation by Journal Impact. Trends Biochem Sci. 1989; 14(8):326-7.
2. Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. J Informetr. 2016; 10(2):365-91.
3. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. DORAASCB [Internet]. ASCB. [2016 Nov 13]. Available from: http://www.ascb.org/dora/.
4. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, Rijcke SD, Rafols I.The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015; 520(7548):429-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a PMID: 25903611.
5. Wilsdon J, Allen L, Belfiore E, Campbell P, Curry S, Hill S, et al. The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. [2016 Nov13]. Available from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/Year/2015/metrictide/Title, 104463, en.html.
6. Garfield E. Impact factors, and why they won't go away. Nature. 2001; 411(6837):522.
7. Seglen PO. The skewness of science. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1992; 43(9):628-38.
8. Seglen PO. Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1994; 45(1):1-11.
9. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997; 314(7079):498-502. PMID: 9056804.
10. Wilson CS. Informetrics. Ann Rev Inf Sci Tech. 1999; 34:107-247.
11. Fava GA, Ottolini F. Impact factors versus actual citations. Psychother Psychosom. 2000; 69(6):285-6. PMID: 11186193.
12. Favaloro EJ. The Journal Impact Factor: don't expect its demise any time soon. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2009; 47(11):1319-24. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2009.328 PMID: 19769542.
13. Holsapple CW. Journal Self-Citation II: The Quest for High Impact-Truth and Consequences? Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2009; 25(1): Article 2. [2016Nov13]. Available from: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol25/iss1/2.
14. Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Michalopoulos A, Rodopoulou SP, Batsiou MA, Karageorgopoulos DE. Comparison of the distribution of citations received by articles published in high, moderate, and low impact factor journals in clinical medicine. Intern Med J. 2010; 40(8):587-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02247.x PMID: 20718883.
15. Chang C-L, McAleer M, Oxley L. How are journal impact, prestige and article influence related? An application to neuroscience. J Appl Sta. 2011; 38(11):2563-73.
16. Vanclay JK. Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics. 2011; 92(2):211-38.
17. Prathap G, Mini S, Nishy P. Does high impact factor successfully predict future citations? An analysis using Peirce's measure. Scientometrics. 2016; 108(3):1043-7.
18. Milojević S, Radicchi F & BarIlan J. Citation success index - An intuitive pair-wise journal comparison metric. J Informetr. 2017; 11(1): 223-31.
19. Perneger TV. Citation analysis of identical consensus statements revealed journal-related bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63(6):660-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.012 PMID: 20097531.
20. Shanahan DR. Auto-correlation of journal impact factor for consensus research reporting statements: A cohort study. PeerJ. 2016; 4: e1887. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1887 PMID: 27069817.
21. Moed HF. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. J Informetr. 2010; 4(3):265-77.
22. Waltman L, van Eck NJ, van Leeuwen TN, Visser MS. Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator. J Informetr. 2013; 7(2):272-85.
23. GlaÈnzel W. On the reliability of predictions based on stochastic citation processes. Scientometrics. 1997; 40(3):481-92.
24. GlaÈnzel W, Schubert A. Predictive aspects of a stochastic model for citation processes. Information Processing & Management, 1995; 31(1): 69-80.
25. GlaÈnzel W, Schlemmer B, Thijs B. Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon. Scientometrics. 2003; 58(3):571-86.
26. van Raan AFJ. Sleeping Beauties in science. Scientometrics. 2004; 59(3):467-72.
27. Li J, Ye FY. Distinguishing sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics. 2016; 108(2):821-8.
28. De Bellis N. Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis. From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. 2009; Lanham (MD): Scarecrow Press.
29. Egghe L. Power laws in the information production process: Lotkaian informetrics. 2005; Amsterdam, Elsevier.
30. Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. Skewness of citation impact data and covariates of citation distributions: A large-scale empirical analysis based on Web of Science data. J Informetr. 2017; 11(1):164-75.