Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 112, Issue 3, pp 1853–1857 | Cite as

Does China need to rethink its metrics- and citation-based research rewards policies?

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Article

Abstract

The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) of China has set forth ambitious goals, as part of its Citation Impact Upgrading Plan (CIUP), to fortify the standing of Chinese academics as well as Chinese academic journals. At present, MOST primarily considers Clarivate Analytics journal impact factor (JIF), which is a proprietary scientometric measure, as a measure of “quality”. Academic publishing is however, starting to move away from metrics such as the JIF that can be gamed, and that do not truly reflect the academic worth of individual scientists, or of journals. Metrics such as altmetrics, which show the paper’s popularity among social media, or a greater balance of metrics, to buffer the monopolized impact of the JIF on metrics-based rewards systems, may be issues that China and MOST need to consider as global academic publishing tends towards a state of open science where open access journals that reach a wider audience may have greater value than journals with a high JIF. Not only are China’s academics well-funded by the state, the Chinese academic market is a highly coveted market by publishers and other parties interested in advancing their academic or commercial interests. Given the current fluid and rapidly evolving state of academic publishing, and the fairly rigid JIF-based rewards system in place in China at the moment, coupled with a recent spate in academic misconduct from Chinese researchers, this letter offers some suggestions as to the need for China to rethink its policies regarding what factors influence academic rewards.

Keywords

Altmetrics Citation impact upgrading plan Clarivate Analytics Journal impact factor Ministry of Science and Technology Social media 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The author declares no commercial, financial or other relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chua, S., Qureshi, A. M., Krishnan, V., Pai, D. R., Kamal, L. B., Gunasegaran, S., et al. (2017). The impact factor of an open access journal does not contribute to an article’s citations. F1000Research, 6, 208. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.10892.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clements, J. C. (2017). Open access articles receive more citations in hybrid marine ecology journals. FACETS, 2, 1–14. doi: 10.1139/facets-2016-0032.Google Scholar
  3. Dadkhah, M., Maliszewski, T., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics and predatory publishing: Actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, 12(3), 353–362. doi: 10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., et al. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5, e16800. doi: 10.7554/eLife.16800.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Stigbrand, T. (2017). Retraction note to multiple articles in tumor biology. Tumor Biology (in press). doi: 10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6.Google Scholar
  7. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013). The Global Science Factor v. 1.1: A new system for measuring and quantifying quality in science. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special Issue 1), 92–101.Google Scholar
  8. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017). Fake peer reviews, fake identities, fake accounts, fake data: beware! AME Medical Journal, 2, 28. doi: 10.21037/amj.2017.02.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Bernès, S. (2017). Clarivate Analytics: continued omnia vanitas impact factor culture. Science and Engineering Ethics (in press). doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9873-7.Google Scholar
  10. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Memon, A. R. (2017). CiteScore: A cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric? Scientometrics, 111(1), 553–556. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2250-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Ruan, C.-J., Yu, X.-N., & Zeng, S.-J. (2013). International collaboration, scientific ethics and science writing: Focus on China. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(1), 38–45.Google Scholar
  12. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Sorooshian, S., & Al-Khatib, A. (2017). Cost-benefit assessment of congresses, meetings or symposia, and selection criteria to determine if they are predatory. Walailak Journal of Science and Technology, 14(4), 259–265.Google Scholar
  13. Van Noorden, R. (2016). China by the numbers. Nature, 534, 452–453. doi: 10.1038/534452a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Xie, Y., Zhang, C., & Lai, Q. (2014). China’s rise as a major contributor to science and technology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(26), 9437–9442. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1407709111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zhou, P., & Leydersdorff, L. (2016). A comparative study of the citation impact of Chinese journals with government priority support. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analysis, 1, 3. doi: 10.3389/frma.2016.00003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Miki-choJapan

Personalised recommendations