Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 65–73 | Cite as

Impact of Excessive Journal Self-Citations: A Case Study on the Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica Journal

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

There is an increasing trend towards assessing the scientific performance of researchers and institutions of higher learning in the form of journal publications and the associated citations. Currently, the journal impact factor (JIF) value is the most widely used measure for any academic contents. However, there are growing concerns for the unethical practices adopted by journal editors to manipulate the JIF computations. Recently, a Swiss journal, Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica which has a JIF value of 0.655 in the year 2006 registers a remarkable JIF increment (of 119%) to 1.439 in the year 2007. It is believed that the journal can achieve such a prominent JIF improvement by publishing a single editorial article that self-cited 66 of its own articles published either in the year 2005 or 2006. The journal has been revoked of any JIF value in the following year of 2008. Thus, it is interesting to review the possible alternative bibliographical trend for the journal should the self-cite event has been avoided, the circumstances leading to the decision by the editor to publish such an article and the possible ethical implications or lessons that can be derived from this incident.

Keywords

Citations Bibliographical database Indexing Bibliometric data Journal impact factor 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

All the bibliographical data used were obtained from the Journal Citation Report of the Thomson Scientific.

References

  1. Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature, 415, 726–729.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, D. M., Liesegang, T. J., & Schachat, A. P. (2005). Meeting our ethical obligations in medical publishing: Responsibilities of editors, authors, and readers of peer-reviewed journals. Archives of Ophthalmology, 123, 684–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atlas, M. C. (2003). Emerging ethical issues in instructions to authors of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 442–449.Google Scholar
  4. Bloch, S., & Walter, G. (2001). The Impact Factor: Time for change. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 563–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, H. (2007). How impact factors changed medical publishing and science. British Medical Journal, 334, 561–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaham, M., Wears, R. L., & Weber, E. (2002). Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2847–2850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chew, M., Villanueva, E. V., & Van Der Weyden, M. B. (2007). Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994–2005) and their Editors’ views. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 100, 142–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, R. E., & Rolfe, G. (2009). PhD by publication: A prospective as well as retrospective award? Some subversive thoughts. Nurse Education Today, 29, 590–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, P. M., Lewenstein, B. V., Simon, D. H., Booth, J. G., & Connolly, M. J. (2008). Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: Randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 337, a568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Maria, A. N. (2003). A report card for journals. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 42, 952–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fassoulaki, A., Papilas, K., Paraskeva, A., & Patris, K. (2002). Impact factor bias and proposed adjustments for its determination. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 46, 902–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fassoulaki, A., Paraskeva, A., Papilas, K., & Karabinis, G. (2000). Self-citations in six anaesthesia journals and their significance in determining the impact factor. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 84, 266–269.Google Scholar
  13. Foo, J. Y. (2009). The retrospective analysis of bibliographical trends for nine biomedical engineering journals from 1999 to 2007. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 37, 1474–1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gami, A. S., Montori, V. M., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2004). Author self-citation in the diabetes literature. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170, 1925–1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes to science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Golubic, R., Rudes, M., Kovacic, N., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2008). Calculating impact factor: How bibliographical classification of journal items affects the impact factor of large and small journals. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hemmingsson, A., Mygind, T., Skjennald, A., & Edgren, J. (2002). Manipulation of impact factors by editors of scientific journals. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology, 178, 767.Google Scholar
  19. Hobbs, R. (2007). Should we ditch impact factors? British Medical Journal, 334, 569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Institute for Scientific Information. 2009. Journal Citation Reports. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Scientific Information, Thomson Scientific.Google Scholar
  22. Kurmis, A. P. (2003). Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 85, 2449–2454.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, K. P., Schotland, M., Bacchetti, P., & Bero, L. A. (2002). Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2805–2808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nieminen, P., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., & Schumacher, M. (2006). The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Redman, B. K., & Merz, J. F. (2006). Research misconduct policies of high impact biomedical journals. Accountability in Research, 13, 247–258.Google Scholar
  26. Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 42–46.Google Scholar
  27. Schutte, H. K., & Svec, J. G. (2007). Reaction of Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica on the current trend of impact factor measures. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 59, 281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith, R. (1997). Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. British Medical Journal, 314, 461.Google Scholar
  29. Trikalinos, N. A., Evangelou, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 464–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vakil, N. (2005). The journal impact factor: Judging a book by its cover. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 100, 2436–2437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walter, G., Bloch, S., Hunt, G., & Fisher, K. (2003). Counting on citations: A flawed way to measure quality. The Medical Journal of Australia, 178, 280–281.Google Scholar
  32. Williams, G. (2007). Should we ditch impact factors? British Medical Journal, 334, 568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of ResearchSingapore General HospitalSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Bioprocessing Technology InstituteAgency for Science Technology and ResearchSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations