data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cc288/cc288283f49640036fdb1725cd06a39f4d788410" alt=""
Ten years ago, Thomson Reuters (who generate the impact factors) realized that some journals were gaming the system to increase their citation count by publishing review articles and editorials that would preferentially cite papers published in their own journal. TR changed their algorithm to detect this kind of behavior and it is much less common as a result. Which brings me to this great website: Retraction Watch. This is a site which details on a daily basis papers which have been retracted from the literature for various reasons some sinister and some more innocent. Yesterday, they reported on the case of a series of articles retracted for citation manipulation which resulted in 3 journals losing their impact factors for this year. The articles were review papers which almost exclusively cited papers in another journal called “Cell Transplantation” and the authors were editorial board members of this journal. All in all, if these papers were excluded from the citation record, the impact factor of this journal would decrease from 6.2 to 4.1 for last year! This is a great post detailing the whole saga.
See here for a paper detailing the history of the impact factor.
Of course, we in the nephrology world would never get caught up in something like this…
No comments:
Post a Comment