Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges

References

• Aad, G., B. Abbott, J. Abdallah, O. Abdinov, R. Aben, M. Abolins, O. S. AbouZeid, et al. 2015. “Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in Pp Collisions at Sqrt[s]=7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments.” Physical Review Letters 114 (19): 191803. doi:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbott, A., D. Cyranoski, N. Jones, B. Maher, Q. Schiermeier, and R. Van Noorden. 2010. “Metrics: Do Metrics Matter?” Nature 465 (7300): 860–862. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/465860a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abritis, A., and A. McCook. 2017. “Cash Incentives for Papers Go Global.” Science 357 (6351): 541. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.357.6351.541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrew, T.2013 “Gold Open Access: Counting the Costs.” Ariadne 70. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue/70/andrew/
   Google Scholar
• Archambault, É., and V. Larivière. 2009. “History of the Journal Impact Factor: Contingencies and Consequences.” Scientometrics 79 (3): 635–649. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2036-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Research Council. 2020. “Assessor Handbook.” Australian Research Council, Canberra, ACT. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.arc.gov.au/file/11800/download?token=Zk90PvzE
   Google Scholar
• Baccini, A., E. Petrovich, and G. De Nicolao. 2019. “Evaluating Italy’s Ranking Boom.” Nature 576 (7786): 213. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03808-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baccini, A., G. De Nicolao, and E. Petrovich. 2019. “Citation Gaming Induced by Bibliometric Evaluation: A Country-Level Comparative Analysis.” PLoS One 14 (9): e0221212. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beall, J. 2016. “Best Practices for Scholarly Authors in the Age of Predatory Journals.” Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 98 (2): 77–79. doi:https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2016.0056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beall, J. 2017. “What I Learned from Predatory Publishers.” Biochemica Medica 27 (2): 273–278. doi:https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2017.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biagioli, M. 2016. “Watch Out for Cheats in Citation Game.” Nature 535 (7611): 201. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/535201a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biagioli, M., and A. Lippman. 2020. Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bik, E. M., A. Casadevall, and F. C. Fang. 2016. “The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications.” mBio 7 (3). doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00809-16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilder, G., J. Lin, and C. Neylon Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructures-v1. 2015; doi: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1314859.v1.
   Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L., and L. Leydesdorff. 2013. “The Validation of (Advanced) Bibliometric Indicators through Peer Assessments: A Comparative Study Using Data from InCites and F1000.” Journal of Informetrics 7 (2): 286–291. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L., and R. Haunschild. 2017. “Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): An Empirical Attempt to Study a New Field-Normalized Bibliometric Indicator.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68 (4): 1064–1067. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23729.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brainard, J. 2018. “Rethinking Retractions.” Science 362 (6413): 390–393. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brainard, J. 2020. “For €9500, Nature Journals Will Now Make Your Paper Free to Read.” Science, Washington, DC. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/9500-nature-journals-will-now-make-your-paper-free-read
   Google Scholar
• Brainard, J. 2021. “A New Mandate Highlights Costs, Benefits of Making All Scientific Articles Free to Read.” Science, Washington, DC. Accessed 22 January 2021 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-mandate-highlights-costs-benefits-making-all-scientific-articles-free-read
   Google Scholar
• Brembs, B. 2018. “Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12: 37. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brembs, B. 2019. “Reliable Novelty: New Should Not Trump True.” PLoS Biology 17 (2): e3000117. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brembs, B., K. Button, and M. Munafo. 2013. “Deep Impact: Unintended Consequences of Journal Rank.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 291. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callaway, E. 2016. “Beat It, Impact Factor! Publishing Elite Turns against Controversial Metric.” Nature 535 (7611): 210–211. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campos-Varela, I., R. Villaverde-Castañeda, and A. Ruano-Raviña. 2020. “Retraction of Publications: A Study of Biomedical Journals Retracting Publications Based on Impact Factor and Journal Category.” Gaceta Sanitaria 34 (5): 430–434. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.05.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2020. “Canadian Research Funding Organizations Sign San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).” Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, ON. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/51732.html
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, L. 1876. The Hunting of the Snark: An Agony in Eight Fits. London, England: Macmillian.
   Google Scholar
• Casadevall, A., and F. C. Fang. 2014. “Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania.” mBio 5 (2): e00064–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00064-14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casadevall, A., S. Bertuzzi, M. J. Buchmeier, R. J. Davis, H. Drake, F. C. Fang, J. Gilbert, et al. 2016. “ASM Journals Eliminate Impact Factor Information from Journal Websites.” mBio 7 :4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01150-16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castelvecchi, D. 2015. Physics Paper Sets Record with More than 5,000 Authors. London, England: SpringerNature. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.nature.com/news/physics-paper-sets-record-with-more-than-5-000-authors-1.17567
   Google Scholar
• Chawla, D. S. 2018. What’s Wrong with the Journal Impact Factor in 5 Graphs. London, England: SpringerNature. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/whats-wrong-with-the-jif-in-five-graphs
   Google Scholar
• Cobey, K. D., A. Grudniewicz, M. M. Lalu, D. B. Rice, H. Raffoul, and D. Moher. 2019. “Knowledge and Motivations of Researchers Publishing in Presumed Predatory Journals: A Survey.” BMJ Open 9 (3): e026516. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conroy, G. 2019. The Biggest Reason for Biomedical Research Retractions. London, England: SpringerNature. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/the-biggest-reason-for-biomedical-retractions
   Google Scholar
• Conroy, G. 2020. What’s Wrong with the h-Index, according to Its Inventor. London, England: SpringerNature. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/whats-wrong-with-the-h-index-according-to-its-inventor
   Google Scholar
• Coolidge, H. J., and R. H. Lord. 1932. Archibald Cary Coolidge: Life and Letters. Bostan, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
   Google Scholar
• Diamandis, E. P. 2017. “The Journal Impact Factor Is under Attack - Use the CAPCI Factor Instead.” BMC Medicine 15 (1): 9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0773-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ding, Y. 2001. “Chinese Academy of Sciences. In China, Publish or Perish Is Becoming the New Reality.” Science 291 (5508): 1477–1479. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.291.5508.1477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dzeng, E. 2014. “How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation: A Conversation with Sydney Brenner.” King’s College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.kingsreview.co.uk/interviews/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner
   Google Scholar
• Egger, J. R., K. J. Konty, J. M. Borrelli, J. Cummiskey, and S. Blank. 2010. “Monitoring Temporal Changes in the Specificity of an Oral HIV Test: A Novel Application for Use in Postmarketing Surveillance.” PLoS One 5 (8): e12231. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggert, L. D. 2011. “Best Practices for Allocating Appropriate Credit and Responsibility to Authors of Multi-Authored Articles.” Frontiers in Psychology 2: 196. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisen, M. B., A. Akhmanova, T. E. Behrens, D. M. Harper, D. Weigel, and M. Zaidi. 2020. “Implementing a “Publish, Then Review” Model of Publishing.” eLife 9: e64910. doi:https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Else, H. 2020a. “How a Torrent of COVID Science Changed Research Publishing - in Seven Charts.” Nature 588 (7839): 553. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03564-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Else, H. 2020b. “Nature Journals Reveal Terms of Landmark Open-Access Option.” Nature 588 (7836): 19–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03324-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Molecular Biology Organisation. 2016. “EMBO Long-Term Fellowships: Application Guidelines.” EMBO, Heildelberg, Germany. Accessed 19 January 2021. http://www.embo.org/documents/LTF/LTF_Guidelines_for_Applicants.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fang, F. C., and A. Casadevall. 2016. “Research Funding: The Case for a Modified Lottery.” mBio 7 (2): e00422–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00422-16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Figueredo, E. 2006. “The Numerical Equivalence between the Impact Factor of Journals and the Quality of the Articles.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 51: 1561. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20418.
   Google Scholar
• Franzoni, C., G. Scellato, and P. Stephan. 2011. “Science Policy. Changing Incentives to Publish.” Science 333 (6043): 702–703. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, N., F. Momeni, P. Mayr, and I. Peters. 2019. “The Effect of bioRxiv Preprints on Citations and Altmetrics.” medRxiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/673665.
   Google Scholar
• Frey, B. S., F. Homberg, and M. Osterloh. 2013. “Organizational Control Systems and Pay-for-Performance in the Public Service.” Organization Studies 34 (7): 949–972. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613483655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuyuno, I., and D. Cyranoski. 2006. “Cash for Papers: Putting a Premium on Publication.” Nature 441 (7095): 792. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/441792b.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfield, E. 1994. “The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor [Originallly Published as “The Thompson Reuters Impact Factor — Clarivate Analytics” “ Clarivate, Philidalphia, PA. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/essays/impact-factor/
   Google Scholar
• Garfield, E. 1996a. “What Is the Primordial Reference for the Phrase ‘Publish or Perish’.” The Scientist 10 (12): 11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfield, E. 1996b. “How Can Impact Factors Be Improved?” BMJ 313 (7054): 411–413. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7054.411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfield, E. 2006. “The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor.” JAMA 295 (1): 90–93. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibney, E. 2013. “Declaration of Independence from Journal Impact Factor.” Times Higher Education, London, England. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/declaration-of-independence-from-journal-impact-factor/2003865.article
   Google Scholar
• Gingras, Y. 2016. Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation: Uses and Abuses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Global $10B Scientific & Technical Publishing Industry Report, 2019-2023. 2020. GlobeNewswire, Los Angeles, CA. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/01/29/1976933/0/en/Global-10B-Scientific-Technical-Publishing-Industry-Report-2019-2023.html
   Google Scholar
• Gray, R. J. 2020. “Sorry, We’re Open: Golden Open-access and Inequality in Non-human Biological Sciences.” Scientometrics 124: 1663–1675. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03540-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, K., and C. T. Bergstrom. 2019. “Contest Models Highlight Inherent Inefficiencies of Scientific Funding Competitions.” PLoS Biology 17 (1): e3000065. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossmann, A., and B. Brembs 2021. “Current Market Rates for Scholarly Publishing Services [Version 1; Peer Review: 2 Approved with Reservations].” F1000Research 10:20 doi: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.1.
   Google Scholar
• Higginson, A. D., and M. R. Munafò. 2016. “Current Incentives for Scientists Lead to Underpowered Studies with Erroneous Conclusions.” PLoS Biology 14 (11): e2000995. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000995.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsch, J. E. 2005. “An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (46): 16569–16572. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsch, J. E. 2020. “Superconductivity, What the H? the Emperor Has No Clothes.” American Physical Society, College Park, MD. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://physicsandsocietyforum.wordpress.com/2020/01/15/superconductivity-what-the-h-the-emperor-has-no-clothes/
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, B. I., X. Yuan, J. M. Anderson, and G. M. Santangelo. 2016. “Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric that Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level.” PLoS Biology 14 (9): e1002541. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hvistendahl, M. 2013. “China’s Publication Bazaar.” Science 342 (6162): 1035–1039. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6162.1035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2005. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLOS Medicine 2 (8): e124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P. A., J. Baas, R. Klavans, and K. W. Boyack. 2019. “A Standardized Citation Metrics Author Database Annotated for Scientific Field.” PLoS Biology 17 (8): e3000384. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssens, A. C. J. W., M. Goodman, K. R. Powell, and M. Gwinn. 2017. “A Critical Evaluation of the Algorithm behind the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR).” PLoS Biology 15 (10): e2002536. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, C. G. 2006. Quality and Value: The True Purpose of Peer Review. London, England: SpringerNature. Accessed 19 January 2021. http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2006/06/quality_and_value_the_true_pur.html
   Google Scholar
• Jinha, A. E. 2010. “Article 50 Million: An Estimate of the Number of Scholarly Articles in Existence.” Learned Publishing 23 (3): 258–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, R., A. Watkinson, and M. Mabe 2018. The STM Report 1968-2018, 5th edition. https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Khoo, S. S.-Y. 2019. “Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity: An Open Access Sequel to the Serials Crisis.” LIBER Quarterly 29 (1): 1–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10280.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon, D. 2020. “Open-Access Journal eLife Announces ‘Preprint First’ Publishing Model.” Nature. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03541-5.
   Google Scholar
• Larivière, V., and C. R. Sugimoto 2018. “The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects.” arXiv: 1801.08992v2
   Google Scholar
• Larivière, V., V. Kiermer, C. J. MacCallum, M. McNutt, M. Patterson, B. Pulverer, S. Swaminathan, S. Taylor, and S. Curry. 2016. “A Simple Proposal for the Publication of Journal Citation Distributions.” bioRxiv: 062109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/062109.
   Google Scholar
• Larivière, V., Y. Gingras, and É. Archambault. 2009. “The Decline in the Concentration of Citations, 1900–2007.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (4): 858–862. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leydesdorff, L., P. Wouters, and L. Bornmann. 2016. “Professional and Citizen Bibliometrics: Complementarities and Ambivalences in the Development and Use of Indicators-A State-of-the-Art Report.” Scientometrics 109 (3): 2129–2150. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2150-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macfarlane, B. 2017. “The Ethics of Multiple Authorship: Power, Performativity and the Gift Economy.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (7): 1194–1210. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1085009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumder, M. S., and K. D. Mandl. 2020. “Early in the Epidemic: Impact of Preprints on Global Discourse about Covid-19 Transmissibility.” Lancet Global Health 8 (5): e627–e30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30113-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKiernan, E. C., L. A. Schimanski, C. Muñoz Nieves, L. Matthias, M. T. Niles, and J. P. Alperin. 2019. “Use of the Journal Impact Factor in Academic Review, Promotion, and Tenure Evaluations.” eLife 8. doi:https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47338.
   Google Scholar
• Moed, H. F., L. Van, and N. Th. 1995. “Improving the Accuracy of Institute for Scientific Information’s Journal Impact Factors.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46: 461–467. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199507)46:6<461::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-G.
   Google Scholar
• Moed, H. F., W. J. M. Burger, J. G. Frankfort, and A. F. J. Van Raan. 1985. “The Use of Bibliometric Data for the Measurement of University Research Performance.” Research Policy 14 (3): 131–149. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(85)90012-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naik, G. 2016. “The Quiet Rise of the NIH’s Hot New Metric.” Nature 539 (7628): 150. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/539150a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Education Union. 2019. “Performance-Related Pay for Teachers.” National Education Union, London, England. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://neu.org.uk/policy/performance-related-pay-teachers
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaisen, J., and T. F. Frandsen. 2019. “Zero Impact: A Large-Scale Study of Uncitedness.” Scientometrics 119 (2): 1227–1254. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03064-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niles, M. T., L. A. Schimanski, E. C. McKiernan, and J. P. Alperin. 2020. “Why We Publish Where We Do: Faculty Publishing Values and Their Relationship to Review, Promotion and Tenure Expectations.” PLoS One 15 (3): e0228914. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 2012. “Does Performance-Based Pay Improve Teaching?” PISA Focus 16: 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Opthof, T., and L. Leydesdorff. 2010. “Caveats for the Journal and Feld Normalizations in the CWTS (“leiden”) Evaluations of Research Performance.” Journal of Informetrics 4 (3): 423–430. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oransky, I., and A. Marcus. 2019. “A Journal Is Forced to Remove A Record-Breaking Number of Papers—And All in One Go.” LabX Media Group, London, England. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/the-top-retractions-of-2019-66852
   Google Scholar
• Patience, G. S., C. A. Patience, B. Blais, and F. Bertrand. 2017. “Citation Analysis of Scientific Categories.” Heliyon 3 (5): e00300. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson, P. B. 2016. “Soon More Journals than Authors?” Acta Physiologica 216 (3): 257. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce, L. 2019. “Incentive Gaming.” McCombs School of Business, Austin, TX. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/incentive-gaming
   Google Scholar
• PLoS Medicine Editors. 2006. “The Impact Factor Game. It Is Time to Find a Better Way to Assess the Scientific Literature.” PLoS Medicine 3 (6): e291. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polka, J. K., G. Dey, M. Pálfy, F. Nanni, L. Brierley, N. Fraser, and J. A. Coates 2021. “Preprints in Motion: Tracking Changes between Posting and Journal Publication.” bioRxiv 2.20.432090; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.20.432090.
   Google Scholar
• Poppema, S. 2020. “Citations are the Currency of Science.” LabX Media Group, London, England. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/citations-are-the-currency-of-science-68204
   Google Scholar
• Price, D. D. S. 1976. “A General Theory of Bibliometric and Other Cumulative Advantage Processes.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 27 (5): 292–306. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630270505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quan, W., B. Chen, and F. Shu. 2017. “Publish or Impoverish: An Investigation of the Monetary Reward System of Science in China (1999-2016).” Aslib Journal of Information Management 69 (5): 486–502. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reardon, S. 2021. “Elite’ Researchers Dominate Citation Space.” Nature 591: 333–334. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00553-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reich, E. S. 2013. “Science Publishing: The Golden Club.” Nature 502 (7471): 291–293. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/502291a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Research Councils UK. 2018. “RCUK Statement on the Responsible Use of Metrics in Research Assessment.” National Archives, London, England. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180322124740/http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/research/rcuk-statement-on-the-responsible-use-of-metrics-in-research-assessment-pdf/
   Google Scholar
• Rossner, M., H. Van Epps, and E. Hill. 2007. “Show Me the Data.” Journal of Cell Biology 179 (6): 1091–1092. doi:https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200711140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowlands, I. 2018. “What are We Measuring? Refocusing on Some Fundamentals in the Age of Desktop Bibliometrics.” FEMS Microbiology Letters 365 (8): fny059. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny059.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royle, S. 2016. “The Great CurveII: Citation Distributions and Reverse Engineering the JIF.” Quantixed. Accessed 16 March 2021. https://quantixed.org/2016/01/05/the-great-curve-ii-citation-distributions-and-reverse-engineering-the-jif/
   Google Scholar
• San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. 2013. DORA. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://sfdora.org/read/
   Google Scholar
• Schekman, R. 2013. “How Journals like Nature, Cell and Science are Damaging Science.” Guardian News & Media Limited, London, England. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science
   Google Scholar
• Schekman, R., and M. Patterson. 2013. “Reforming Research Assessment.” Elife 2: e00855. doi:https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid, S. L. 2017. “Five Years Post-Dora: Promoting Best Practices for Research Assessment.” Molecular Biology of the Cell 28 (22): 2941–2944. doi:https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E17-08-0534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seglen, P. O. 1992. “The Skewness of Science.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43 (9): 628–638. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199210)43:9<628::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seglen, P. O. 1997. “Why Yhe Impact Factor of Journals Should Not Be Used for Evaluating Research.” BMJ 314 (7079): 498–502. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silver, A. 2019. “Chinese Ministry Investigates Duplications in Papers by University President.” Nature 576 (7785): 16–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03599-w.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smaldino, P. E., and R. McElreath. 2016. “The Natural Selection of Bad Science.” Royal Society Open Science 3: 160384. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smolinsky, L. 2016. “Expected Number of Citations and the Crown Indicator.” Journal of Informetrics 10 (1): 43–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soltani, P., and R. Patini. 2020. “Retracted COVID-19 Articles: A Side-Effect of the Hot Race to Publication.” Scientometrics 125: 819–822. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03661-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern, B. M., and E. K. O’Shea. 2019. “A Proposal for the Future of Scientific Publishing in the Life Sciences.” PLOS Biology 17 (3): e3000179. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strathern, M. 1997. “‘Improving Ratings’: Audit in the British University System.” European Review 5 (3): 305–321. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5:3<05::AID-EURO184>3.0.CO;2-4.
   Google Scholar
• Surkis, A., and S. Spore. 2018. “The Relative Citation Ratio: What Is It and Why Should Medical Librarians Care?” Journal of the Medical Library Association 106 (4): 508–513. doi:https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tantin, D. 2016. “Opinion: A Baseball Analogy.” LabX Media Group, New York, NY. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/opinion-a-baseball-analogy-33140
   Google Scholar
• Tregoning, J. 2018. “How Will You Judge Me if Not by Impact Factor?” Nature 558 (7710): 345. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05467-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Triggle, C. R. 2015. “The Answer Is Not 42.” Biochemical Pharmacology 98 (2): 327–334. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2015.06.029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Triggle, C. R., and D. J. Triggle. 2007. “What Is the Future of Peer Review? Why Is There Fraud in Science? Is Plagiarism Out of Control? Why Do Scientists Do Bad Things? Is It All a Case Of: “All that Is Necessary for the Triumph of Evil Is that Good Men Do Nothing”?” Vascular Health and Risk Management 3 (1): 39–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Triggle, C. R., and D. J. Triggle. 2017. “From Gutenberg to Open Science: An Unfulfilled Odyssey.” Drug Development Research 78 (1): 3–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ddr.21369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaidyanathan, G. 2019. “Indian Payment-for-Papers Proposal Rattles Scientists.” Nature 566 (7744): 307. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00514-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Noorden, R. 2017. “The Science That’s Never Been Cited.” Nature 552 (7684): 162–164. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-017-08404-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Noorden, R. 2020. Open-access Plan S to Allow Publishing in Any Journal. London, England: SpringerNature. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02134-6
   Google Scholar
• Van Noorden, R., and D. S. Chawla. 2019. “Hundreds of Extreme Self-Citing Scientists Revealed in New Database.” Nature 572 (7771): 578–579. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02479-7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Raan, A. F. J., T. N. Van Leeuwen, M. S. Visser, N. J. Van Eck, and L. Waltman. 2010. “Rivals for the Crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff.” Journal of Informetrics 4 (3): 431–435. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanclay, J. K. 2012. “Impact Factor: Outdated Artefact or Stepping-Stone to Journal Certification?” Scientometrics 92 (2): 211–238. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma, I. M. 2015. “Impact, Not Impact Factor.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (26): 7875–7876. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509912112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, M. L., V. Larivière, and Y. Gingras. 2012. “A Small World of Citations? the Influence of Collaboration Networks on Citation Practices.” PLoS One 7 (3): e33339. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltman, L. 2016. “A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators.” Journal of Informatics 10 (2): 354–391. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltman, L., and N. J. Van Eck. 2012. “The Inconsistency of the h-Index.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (2): 406–415. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltman, L., N. J. Van Eck, T. N. Van Leeuwen, M. S. Visser, and A. F. J. Van Raan. 2011. “Towards a New Crown Indicator: An Empirical Analysis.” Scientometrics 87 (3): 467–481. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0354-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltman, L., and V. A. Traag 2021, “Use of the Journal Impact Factor for Assessing Individual Articles: Statistically Flawed or Not?” arXiv:1703.02334v3. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02334
   Google Scholar
• Wellcome Trust. 2020. “Open Access Policy.” Wellcome, London, England. Accessed 19 January 2021. https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/guidance/open-access-guidance/open-access-policy
   Google Scholar
• Wildgaard, L. 2015. “A Comparison of 17 Author-level Bibliometric Indicators for Researchers in Astronomy, Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health in Web of Science and Google Scholar.” Scientometrics 104: 873–906. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1608-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, L. 1942. The Academic Man: A Study in the Sociology of A Profession. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, W. 2013. “Research Integrity in China.” Science 342 (6162): 1019. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., and G. Sivertsen. 2020. “The New Research Assessment Reform in China and Its Implementation.” Scholarly Assessment Reports 2 (1): 3. doi:https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.15.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, S. D. 2006. “Judge a Paper on Its Own Merits, Not Its Journal’s.” Nature 442 (7098): 26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/442026b.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar