Abstract
This opinion paper takes aim at an error made recently by Clarivate Analytics in which it sent out an email that congratulated academics for becoming exclusive members of academia’s most cited elite, the Highly Cited Researchers (HCRs). However, that email was sent out to an undisclosed number of non-HCRs, who were offered an apology shortly after, through a bulk mail, which tried to down-play the importance of the error, all the while praising the true HCRs. When Clarivate Analytics senior management was contacted, the company declined to offer an indication of the number of academics who had been contacted and erroneously awarded the HCR status. We believe that this regrettable blunder, together with the opacity offered by the company, fortify the corporate attitude about the value of the journal impact factor (JIF), and what it represents, namely a marketing tool that is falsely used to equate citations with quality, worth, or influence. The continued commercialization of metrics such as the JIF is at the heart of their use to assess the “quality” of a researcher, their work, or a journal, and contributes to a great extent to driving scientific activities towards a futile endeavor.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Callaway, E. (2016). Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature, 535, 210–211. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20224.
Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2015). Impacted science: Impact is not importance. mBio, 6(5), e01593-15. doi:10.1128/mBio.01593-15.
CONACyT. (2016). Área II: Biología y Química Criterios Internos de Evaluación. http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/index.php/el-conacyt/sistema-nacional-de-investigadores/otros/marco-legal-sni/criterios-sni/828-criteriosespecificosareaii/file. Accessed: 6 Jan 2017.
Favaloro, E. J. (2008). Measuring the quality of journals and journal articles: The impact factor tells but a portion of the story. Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, 34(1), 7–25. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1066030.
Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90–93. doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90.
Gómez Nashiki, A., Jiménez García, S. A., & Moreles Vázquez, J. (2014). Publicar en revistas científicas, recomendaciones de investigadores de ciencias sociales y humanidades. Rev Mex Invest Educativa, 19(60), 155–185. (in Spanish with English abstract).
Kearl, M. C. (2015). The proliferation of skulls in popular culture: A case study of how the traditional symbol of mortality was rendered meaningless. Mortality, 20(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/13576275.2014.961004.
Larivière, V., Kiermer, V., MacCallum, C. J., McNutt, M., Patterson, M., Pulverer, B., et al. (2016). A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. BioRxiv. doi:10.1101/062109.
Marketwatch. (2016). Thomson Reuters announces definitive agreement to sell its Intellectual Property & Science business to Onex and Baring Asia for $3.55 billion. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/thomson-reuters-announces-definitive-agreement-to-sell-its-intellectual-property-science-business-to-onex-and-baring-asia-for-355-billion-2016-07-11?siteid=nbsh. Accessed 6 Jan 2017.
Oransky, I. (2016). Sorry, researchers: That Thomson Reuters “highly cited” designation you received is probably wrong. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/21/sorry-researchers-that-thomson-reuters-highly-cited-designation-you-received-is-probably-wrong/. Accessed 6 Jan 2017.
Rossner, M., Van Epps, H., & Hill, E. (2007). Show me the data. Journal of Cell Biology, 179(6), 1091–1092. doi:10.1083/jcb.200711140.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013a). Issues in publishing and science. Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special issue 1), 126 pp.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013b). The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor: critical questions that scientists should be asking. Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special issue 1), 81–83.
Woolston, C. (2014). High retraction rates raise eyebrows. Nature, 513(7518), 283. doi:10.1038/513283f.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the 12 scientists for their explicit permission to publish their Tweets shown in Fig. 1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The second author received a congratulatory email from Thomson Reuters IP and Science, indicating that he had been named a 2016 Highly Cited Researcher. The second author was subsequently sent an email indicating that the original mail had been sent in error. The second author is currently a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI) in Mexico.
Appendices
Appendix 1
An anonymized verbatim sample of the erroneous congratulatory email sent to a non-HCR. According to a December 24, 2016 report published by Bloomberg,Footnote 4 the signatory, Mr. Vin Caraher, served as “President of Intellectual Property & Science at Thomson Reuters Corporation since 2015 until October 12, 2016.”
“De: Thomson Reuters IP and Science [email redacted]
Envoyé: vendredi 18 Novembre 2016 08:06
À: [email redacted]
Objet: Congratulations Highly Cited Researcher!
Dear [recipient name redacted], I would like to extend congratulations on being named a 2016 Highly Cited Researcher and to announce the availability of the official 2016 list. You were selected as a Highly Cited Researcher because your work has been identified as being among the most valuable and significant in the field. Very few researchers earn this distinction—writing the greatest number of reports, officially designated by Essential Science Indicators as Highly Cited Papers. In addition, these reports rank among the top 1% most cited works for their subject field and year of publication, earning them the mark of exceptional impact. Now that you have achieved this designation, you will always retain your Highly Cited Researcher status. Share your recognition!
-
Add this badge to your website, LinkedIn profile and email signature.
-
Request a physical copy of a personalized letter and certificate for display. Requests can be made through the end of December.
-
Join the conversation on social media using the hashtag #HighlyCited.
I applaud your contributions to the advancement of scientific discovery and innovation and wish you continued success.
Best regards,
Vin Caraher”
Appendix 2
An anonymized verbatim sample of the apology to the non-HCR who was erroneously sent a congratulatory email in Appendix 1. Kindly contrast the signatory of this email with that in the email that is displayed in Appendix 1. Also notice that by addressing the email recipient as “Dear Researcher” indicates that a bulk email was sent to all non-HCRs who had been congratulated by the email in Appendix 1.
“De: Thomson Reuters IP and Science [email redacted]
Envoyé: vendredi 18 Novembre 2016 11:48
À: [email redacted]
Objet: 2016 Highly Cited Researcher status update
Dear Researcher, We recently sent you an email about being named a Highly Cited Researcher. This was sent in error. Please accept our sincere apologies. We’ve identified the error in our system that caused this and were able to resolve it quickly, ensuring it won’t be repeated. Highly Cited Researchers derive from papers that are defined as those in the top 1% by citations for their field and publication year in the Web of Science. As leaders in the field of bibliometrics we appreciate the effort required to reach this achievement and celebrate those who have done so this year. Sincerely, Clarivate Analytics”
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Bernès, S. Clarivate Analytics: Continued Omnia vanitas Impact Factor Culture. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 291–297 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9873-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9873-7