Difference between revisions of "Resource:87b2ae47-676d-4ddd-8a53-666746c9ce1b"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Major indexing service rejects appeals by two suppressed journals |Is About=In this factual case study, two academic journals were suppr...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Title=Major indexing service rejects appeals by two suppressed journals | |Title=Major indexing service rejects appeals by two suppressed journals | ||
|Is About=In this factual case study, two academic journals were suppressed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) because they allegedly have excessively self-cited in order to raise their impact factor. | |Is About=In this factual case study, two academic journals were suppressed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) because they allegedly have excessively self-cited in order to raise their impact factor. | ||
| − | |Important Because=This is an interesting case for several reasons. Firstly, it shows that allegations of misconduct are not restricted to individual researchers and their | + | |Important Because=This is an interesting case for several reasons. Firstly, it shows that allegations of misconduct are not restricted to individual researchers and their institutions but also to journal editors and publishers; although such cases have so far been less frequently encountered, they are now becoming increasingly common. |
| − | Secondly, the specific allegations may appear more difficult to investigate and prove as misconduct. One of | + | Secondly, the specific allegations may appear more difficult to investigate and/or prove as misconduct. One of these two journals, in this specific case, maintain that there was no intention to inflate the impact factor and any excessive self-citation was due to a 'niche' area where no many other journals publish on the topic. |
The case is also interesting and can stimulate discussions as to what is a good balance between broad and specialized referencing. | The case is also interesting and can stimulate discussions as to what is a good balance between broad and specialized referencing. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/08/28/major-indexing-service-rejects-appeals-by-two-suppressed-journals/#more-120388 | |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/08/28/major-indexing-service-rejects-appeals-by-two-suppressed-journals/#more-120388 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Resource=Resource:5980a54c-1816-499c-8410-7fea8865c89a | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Has Timepoint=28/8/20 | |Has Timepoint=28/8/20 | ||
Latest revision as of 12:30, 6 July 2021
ResourcesCases
Major indexing service rejects appeals by two suppressed journals
What is this about?
In this factual case study, two academic journals were suppressed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) because they allegedly have excessively self-cited in order to raise their impact factor.
Why is this important?
This is an interesting case for several reasons. Firstly, it shows that allegations of misconduct are not restricted to individual researchers and their institutions but also to journal editors and publishers; although such cases have so far been less frequently encountered, they are now becoming increasingly common.
Secondly, the specific allegations may appear more difficult to investigate and/or prove as misconduct. One of these two journals, in this specific case, maintain that there was no intention to inflate the impact factor and any excessive self-citation was due to a 'niche' area where no many other journals publish on the topic.
The case is also interesting and can stimulate discussions as to what is a good balance between broad and specialized referencing.
