SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

The Scientometric Bubble Considered Harmful · Study

ArticleShelves

ArticleThe Scientometric Bubble Considered Harmful

Gonzalo Génova2015

OA

Articlegreen2015

The Scientometric Bubble Considered Harmful

Gonzalo Génova · Hernán Astudillo R. · Anabel Fraga

58 citations·0/0 files stored·Science and Engineering Ethics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access Academic integrity and plagiarism

Abstract

No abstract was published for this record.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 58 citations exist upstream.

References

1968The Matthew Effect in Science 1968The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered.2010The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index 2013Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank 2005Citation Statistics from 110 Years of Physical Review 2003The politics of publication 1981The Publishing Game: Getting More for Less 2013San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment

Cited by

2017Quantity versus impact of software engineering papers: a quantitative study 2016The Brazilian scientific output published in journals: A study based on a large CV database 2018Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a scientometric analysis of the global research activity and collaborative networks 2023Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals 2023Los desafíos de la revisión por pares: cómo garantizar la calidad y transparencia del proceso editorial de las revistas científicas

Related works

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

2017Quantity versus impact of software engineering papers: a quantitative studyarticle · 5 shared references 2012A avaliação da produtividade em pesquisa na Educação Física: reflexões sobre algumas limitações dos indicadores bibliométricosarticle · 5 shared references 2015Impacted Science: Impact Is Not Importancearticle · 4 shared references 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer reviewarticle · 4 shared references 2015Strategies towards Evaluation beyond Scientific Impact. Pathways not only for Agricultural Researcharticle · 4 shared references 2016Auto-correlation of journal impact factor for consensus research reporting statements: a cohort studyarticle · 4 shared references

Details

Year2015

Typearticle

Published2015-02-17

VenueScience and Engineering Ethics

ISSN-L1353-3452

Languageen

Citations58

Files0 public / 0

Shelfscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Identifiers

doi10.1007/s11948-015-9632-6

openalex_workW1982602987

Links

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.

2018Productivity of CNPq Researchers from Different Fields in Biomedical Sciences: The Need for Objective Bibliometric Parameters—A Report from Brazil

2022The model of maximum productivity for research universities SciVal author ranks, productivity, university rankings, and their implications

2018How to stop salami science: promotion of healthy trends in publishing behavior