SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
How bibliometrics and school rankings reward unreliable science
8 references·2 citing·40 second hop
How bibliometrics and school rankings reward unreliable science (2023)How bibliometrics and school rankings rew…Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database (2019)Hundreds of extreme self-citi…Assessing and Raising Concerns About Duplicate Publication, Authorship Transgressions and Data Errors in a Body of Preclinical Research (2019)Assessing and Raising Concern…Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: it’s time to change how we judge research (2018)Let’s move beyond the rhetori…Cash bonuses for peer-reviewed papers go global (2017)Cash bonuses for peer-reviewe…Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics (2015)Bibliometrics: The Leiden Man…Publishing: The peer-review scam (2014)Publishing: The peer-review s…The Retraction Penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science (2013)The Retraction Penalty: Evide…China's Publication Bazaar (2013)China's Publication BazaarWhy are some articles highly cited in applied linguistics? A bibliometric study (2025)Why are some articles highly …The H-index is an unreliable research metric for evaluating the publication impact of experimental scientists (2024)The H-index is an unreliable …Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor (2006)The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? (2015)Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2017)Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021)Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models (1999)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications (2014)The incidence and role of negative citations in science (2015)Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones (2021)TALENT VERSUS LUCK: THE ROLE OF RANDOMNESS IN SUCCESS AND FAILURE (2018)The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future (2018)A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences (2019)Citation bias, diversity, and ethics (2022)Indicators of research quality, quantity, openness, and responsibility in institutional review, promotion, and tenure policies across seven countries (2022)Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over TimeMen Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time (2017)A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field (2019)Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges (2021)Analysis of evolutionary process in intuitionistic fuzzy set theory: A dynamic perspective (2022)Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics (2023)Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature (2014)Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration (2015)Systematic review and statistical analysis of the integrity of 33 randomized controlled trials (2016)Correcting the scientific record – A broken system? (2020)What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions? (2023)The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation (2021)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines (2021)What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved? (2017)Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects (2019)Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process (2015)The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics (2016)Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research (2017)Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science? (2018)Impact factor impacts on early-career scientist careers (2019)When silence goes viral, Africa sneezes! A perspective on Africa's subdued research response to COVID-19 and a call for local scientific evidence (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2015Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics2,816 cited
  • 2013China's Publication Bazaar256 cited
  • 2014Publishing: The peer-review scam228 cited
  • 2013The Retraction Penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science191 cited
  • 2019Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database140 cited
  • 2018Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: it’s time to change how we judge research69 cited
  • 2017Cash bonuses for peer-reviewed papers go global40 cited
  • 2019Assessing and Raising Concerns About Duplicate Publication, Authorship Transgressions and Data Errors in a Body of Preclinical Research24 cited

Cited by

  • 2024The H-index is an unreliable research metric for evaluating the publication impact of experimental scientists13 cited
  • 2025Why are some articles highly cited in applied linguistics? A bibliometric study13 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work