Category: citation manipulation

Want a higher h-index? Here’s a way – but be warned, it’s a method that will raise some eyebrows.

Take the example of Juan Manuel Corchado, a computer scientist at the University of Salamanca in Spain. He has the 145th-highest h-index in the country. But many of the nearly 39,000 citations are by him to his own work.

This conference abstract, about the Internet of things and blockchain for smart cities, for instance, cites 44 references to Corchado’s own papers out of a total of 322 references. While this conference abstract, presented to a conference about artificial intelligence in educational technology in Wuhan, China, in July 2021, contains the exact same references as the one about blockchain for smart cities.

Other examples of short conference abstracts by Corchado listing dozens of citations to his own previous papers also exist. 

Continue reading How critics say a computer scientist in Spain artificially boosted his Google Scholar metrics

Hey, researchers and universities, want to be included in a new ranking scheme? No problem, just pony up some cash. 

Tanvir Ahmed, a postdoc at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, says this year has seen a rise in news stories— for example from Bangladesh, Kashmir, and Nigeria —  reporting so-called predatory rankings. These come to light due to the lack of knowledge about rankings at universities and the media in certain countries, he says. 

Ahmed is referring to AD Scientific Index, which charges $30 USD for an individual researcher to be included in the ranking and an unspecified sum for institutions wishing to be ranked. 

Continue reading Researchers sound alarm on ‘predatory’ rankings

A company that had offered payment for citations of articles in various journals has ended the practice, and fired the staffer it said was responsible, following reporting by Retraction Watch.

On August 31, we reported that Innoscience Innoscience Research, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, was offering $6 per citation of papers in five different journals, and up to five cites, or $30, per paper, or $150 in total across all five journals. Since then, two journals have distanced themselves from the scheme.

Yesterday, Innoscience told us by email:

Continue reading Company fires employee, ends cash for citation scheme following Retraction Watch post

A second journal has said it was unaware of a cash for citations scheme that named it as a participant, following our reporting in August.

The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research (JCTR) was one of five journals listed by Innoscience Research that Innoscience would pay $6 per citation to its work, as we reported on August 31. On October 9, another of those journals said it “will not entertain cash requests from the individuals who claim to have cited our articles, nor shall we pay up.”

In “JCTR’s statement on ‘paid citations’ reported by Retraction Watch,” dated October 10, editor in chief Michal Heger writes:

Continue reading Another journal distances itself from cash for citations after Retraction Watch report

A journal that appeared to be involved in a scheme in which authors were paid bonuses to cite its papers has said it “will not entertain cash requests from the individuals who claim to have cited our articles, nor shall we pay up.”

The comments come about a month after a Retraction Watch post detailing the scheme by Innoscience Research listing five journals, one of which was the International Journal of Bioprinting. Innoscience, who has not responded to requests for comment, does not publish the IJB; Whoice does. It’s unclear whether there is a relationship between the two companies.

In a statement dated October 9, the IJB wrote:

Continue reading Journal distances itself from cash for citations scheme after Retraction Watch report

Worried about scarce research funding? Does the prospect of paying rent on that meager post-doc salary keep you up at night? Fear no more! 

Innoscience Research in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to the rescue.

The company has launched an innovative (read: shady) scheme to pay researchers to cite studies from several journals it controls. How much can you earn? That depends. The payout is structured this way: $6 a citation and up to five cites, or $30, per paper, or $150 in total across all five journals. 

Continue reading Publisher offers cash for citations

Clarivate, the company behind the Impact Factor, a closely watched — and controversial — metric, is calling out more than 20 journals for unusual citation patterns.

The 21 journals — 10 of which were suppressed, meaning they will not receive an Impact Factor in 2020, and 11 of which received an expression of concern — are fewer than half of the nearly 50 that the company suppressed or subjected to an expression of concern last year from its Journal Citation Report (JCR). The suppressions, the company notes, represent .05% of the journals listed — a total that increased dramatically this year from about 12,000 to about 20,000. 

Clarivate suppressed 10 journals for excessive self-citation which inflates the Impact Factor, or for “citation-stacking,” sometimes referred to as taking part in “citation cartels” or “citation rings:”

Continue reading Ten journals denied 2020 Impact Factors because of excessive self-citation or “citation stacking”

Observers describe the quantity of research information now produced variously as “torrent,” “overload,” “proliferation,” or the like. Technological advances in computing and telecommunication have helped us keep up, to an extent. But, I would argue, scholarly and journalistic ethics have not kept pace.

As a case in point, consider the journal article literature review. Its function is twofold: to specify where new information fits within the context of what is already known; and to avoid unknowingly duplicating research projects the public has already paid for. Paradoxically, however, information proliferation may discourage honest and accurate literature reviews. Research information accumulates, which increases the time required for conducting a thorough literature review, which increases the incentive to avoid it.  

Most dismissive reviews that I have encountered are raw declarations. A scholar, pundit, or journalist simply declares that no research on a topic exists (or couldn’t be any good if it did exist). No mention is made of how or where (or, even if) they searched. Certain themes appear over and over, such as:

Continue reading Dismissive reviews: A cancer on the body of knowledge

A journal has allowed a geophysicist who cited his own work hundreds of times across 10 papers to retract the articles and republish them with a fraction of the self-citations.

From 2017 to 2019, Yangkang Chen published some of the papers in Geophysical Journal International, an Oxford University Press title, while he was a postdoc at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the U.S., and some as a faculty member at Zhejiang University in China. In April, the journal subjected the works to expressions of concern. 

On June 19, the journal published a retraction notice for the 10 papers, along with an editor’s note that read:

Continue reading Cite yourself excessively, apologize, then republish the papers with fewer self-citations. Journal says: Fine.

This is an invited guest post related to news about two suppression reversals announced today by Clarivate.

The research process is rarely straightforward. There are a myriad of ways in which it can go wrong, from the inception of a hypothesis that goes on to be disproved, to failed experiments and rejected manuscripts, hopefully ending in the “happily ever after” of adding to the scholarly record through publication and worldwide dissemination… before starting all over again. Being able to build on the corpus of existing knowledge is essential for future discoveries and innovation: As Newton wrote back in 1675 “If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.”

Sadly, we know that even once published, many scientific results are not easily reproducible, and some are amended or retracted. Fraud and misconduct might be the attention-grabbing explanations for the lack of reproducibility in research, but more often than not, it is honest mistakes or making decisions with inaccurate or incomplete information that lead to errata, corrigenda or retraction of articles. Many have argued we need to be more honest about this – and to see retraction as a good thing. Correction of the version of record should be embraced, rather than avoided, and the stigma surrounding retractions should be removed.

Why should the same not apply for suppression?

Continue reading The positive case for suppression: A guest post from the editor in chief of Clarivate’s Web of Science