No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
T oo bad it is not ‘‘A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away . . . ’’ Instead, it is the 21st century and European, Canadian, and American scientists are now in the grips of a menace that threatens their livelihood: the journal impact factor (a proprietary calculation based on journal citations and produced by the monolithic news and information empire Thomson Reuters) is being used in many places to determine academic employment, rank, tenure, and funding. In the past, few voices have protested the abusive power associated with journal impact factor, and publishers generally shrank in terror at the prospect of their journals being subjected to the ‘‘death penalty’’—removal from the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor listing. However, in 2007, the Executive Director of the powerful Rockefeller University Press, along with the Executive Editors of the Journal of Experimental Medicine and the Journal of Cell Biology, courageously questioned the validity and reliability of the journal impact factor calculations. These editorials (by Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, and Emma Hill) emboldened others to voice concerns about the use of an unverifiable and proprietary metric—journal impact factor—to evaluate the quality of scientific work. In the initial 1977 film (now designated ‘‘Episode IV’’) of the epic Star Wars movie series by George Lucas, the Galactic Empire uses a lethal show of force (the Death Star) to destroy the relatively insignificant planet Alderaan in order to frighten the rest of the galactic inhabitants (particularly those on the larger planets) into submission. Apparently, Thomson Reuters has decided to use a similar tactic: wielding its enormous power in a show of force against a tiny journal. As has been widely described, the journal impact factor is calculated by summing the total citations during a given year to articles published in the previous 2 years and dividing this by the number of ‘‘items’’ (a number derived secretively by Thomson Reuters) published in the journal during that same 2-year period. The ability of journal editors and publishers (particularly large and influential ones) to manipulate (and negotiate) the journal impact factor to achieve higher values has been well documented. Unfortunately, journals from small subspecialty fields are at a distinct disadvantage with fewer articles for possible citation, a smaller population of investigators, and little leverage to finagle higher journal impact factor values. Nonetheless, 2 clever scientists, Harm K. Schutte and Jan G. Svec, who work in a small scientific field published in the year 2007 an editorial in the official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP)—Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica (published by S. Karger AG, Basel)—in which they cited all 66 articles published in that journal during the years 2005 and 2006. This strategy of self-citation raised the journal impact factor from a value of 0.655 for 2006 to 1.439 for 2007 and jumped the journal’s ranking by 9 places in the subject category of ‘‘Rehabilitation’’ (which only contains 27 journals). For investigators whose only scholarly outlet is publishing in this journal, such changes in journal status could profoundly affect their ability to compete for an academic livelihood. This permutation probably would have gone unnoticed but for a letter published in the September 11, 2008, issue of Nature. Subsequent reaction by Thomson Reuters was swift: just 4 weeks later on October 9, 2008, in Nature, James Testa reported that self-citation is ‘‘reviewed each year’’ and that journals will be removed from Journal Citation Reports until the ‘‘problem of excessive self-citation resolves and we can publish an accurate impact factor.’’ One strategy by journal editors to manipulate the journal impact factor has been to demand that authors cite articles from recent years of the journal (ie, self-citation). Thomson Reuters does not provide any criteria for acceptable self-citation, although it has been reported that up to 20% self-citation is common in most journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports. Received December 29, 2008. Accepted for publication December 29, 2008.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 47 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.