Home » Peer review » Record number of journals manipulated “impact factors,” got banned

Record number of journals manipulated “impact factors,” got banned

Last May, I wrote about ”An insurrection against “journal impact factors” in science?”

Now, we learn from Nature News Blog:

A record number of journals — 66 of them, including 33 37* new offenders — have been banned from this year’s impact-factor list (released today) because of excessive self-citation or because of ‘citation stacking’ (in which journals cite each other to excessive amounts). This year, the named-and-shamed titles include the International Journal of Crashworthiness and the Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems. Only 51 were banned last year (28 new offenders), and 34 the year before that. Along with the record numbers, Thomson Reuters has posted a new explanation of why it decides to ban journals — essentially because the self-citations distort the rankings. *Thomson Reuters updated the number of new offenders from 33, to 37, on 20 June.

Apparently, as a metric, impact factor is getting worse.

Gregor Mendel wouldn’t have stood a chance. His work was unnoticed when he did it.

The main lesson is that any system one human being can develop, another can manipulate, so there is no substitute for good judgement.

Second, over time, such systems become a dead hand. Put another way, many more tenured Darwin profs could act to manipulate rankings than could any critics, coming from whatever position. Thus, the dead hand rules.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

One Response to Record number of journals manipulated “impact factors,” got banned

  1. Scientists are unhappy if anyone outside the scientific community passes judgment on their activities. They are adamant that they, not outsiders and certainly not government agencies, are the ones who should judge their own cases where misconduct or fraud is charged. But anyone within the scientific community who dares to raise questions against prominent members may fare badly.

Leave a Reply