Evaluation by Citation: Trends in Publication Behavior, Evaluation Criteria, and the Strive for High Impact Publications
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Maarten van Wesel
- 关键词：Publish or perish ; High impact ; Research evaluation ; Publication practices
- 刊名：Science and Engineering Ethics
- 出版年：2016
- 出版时间：February 2016
- 年：2016
- 卷：22
- 期：1
- 页码：199-225
- 全文大小：561 KB
- 参考文献：Abazov, V. M., Abbott, B., Abdesselam, A., Abolins, M., Abramov, V., & Acharya, B. S. (2004). A precision measurement of the mass of the top quark. Nature, 429(6992), 638–642. doi:10.1038/nature02589 .CrossRef
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437–461. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5 .CrossRef
Andreescu, L. (2013). Self-plagiarism in academic publishing: The anatomy of a misnomer. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 775–797. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9416-1 .CrossRef
Broad, W. (1981). The publishing game: Getting more for less. Science, 211(4487), 1137–1139. doi:10.1126/science.7008199 .CrossRef
de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science (George B Pegram lectures, Vol. 1962). New York: Columbia University Press.
Dijstelbloem, H., Huisman, F., Miedema, F., & Mijnhardt, W. (2013). Why science does not work as it should and what to do about it. http://www.scienceintransition.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Science-in-Transition-Position-Paper-final.pdf . Accessed March 5, 2015.
Elliott, D. B. (2013). Salami slicing and the SPU: Publish or Perish? Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 33(6), 625–626. doi:10.1111/opo.12090 .CrossRef
Errami, M., & Garner, H. (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature, 451(7177), 397–399. doi:10.1038/451397a .CrossRef
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233. doi:10.1037/h0057532 .CrossRef
Franco, G. (2013). Research evaluation and competition for academic positions in occupational medicine. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 68(2), 123–127. doi:10.1080/19338244.2011.639819 .CrossRef
Frenken, K., Hölzl, W., & Vor, F. D. (2005). The citation impact of research collaborations: The case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988–2002). Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22, 9–30. doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2010.00309.x .CrossRef
Garfield, E. (2006). Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(5), 1123–1127. doi:10.1093/ije/dyl189 .CrossRef
Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607–632. doi:10.2307/4227693 .CrossRef
Gibbs, R. A., Weinstock, G. M., Metzker, M. L., Muzny, D. M., Sodergren, E. J., & Scherer, S. (2004). Genome sequence of the Brown Norway rat yields insights into mammalian evolution. Nature, 428(6982), 493–521. doi:10.1038/nature02426 .CrossRef
Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? Scientometrics, 61(3), 395–404. doi:10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045117.13348.b1 .CrossRef
Gross, P. L. K., & Gross, E. M. (1927). College libraries and chemical education. Science, 66(1713), 385–389. doi:10.1126/science.66.1713.385 .CrossRef
Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. S. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Haslam, N., Ban, L., Kaufmann, L., Loughnan, S., Peters, K., Whelan, J., et al. (2008). What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology. Scientometrics, 76(1), 169–185. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1892-8 .CrossRef
Hudson, J. (2007). Be known by the company you keep: Citations—Quality or chance? Scientometrics, 71(2), 231–238. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1671-6 .CrossRef
Jacques, T. S., & Sebire, N. J. (2010). The impact of article titles on citation hits: An analysis of general and specialist medical journals. JRSM Short Reports,. doi:10.1258/shorts.2009.100020 .
Jamali, H., & Nikzad, M. (2011). Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citations. Scientometrics, 88(2), 653–661. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0412-z .CrossRef
Kumar, M. N. (2008). A review of the types of scientific misconduct in biomedical research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(3), 211–228. doi:10.1007/s10805-008-9068-6 .CrossRef
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ledergerber, B., & PLATO Collaboration. (2004). Predictors of trend in CD4-positive T-cell count and mortality among HIV-1-infected individuals with virological failure to all three antiretroviral-drug classes. Lancet, 364(9428), 51–62. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16589-6 .CrossRef
Levelt Committee, Noort Committee, & Drenth Committee. (2012). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. https://www.commissielevelt.nl/wp-content/uploads_per_blog/commissielevelt/2013/01/finalreportLevelt1.pdf . Accessed March 5, 2015.
Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Citation levels and Collaboration within library and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 434–442. doi:10.1002/asi.21000 .CrossRef
Matías-Guiu, J., & García-Ramos, R. (2010). Fraud and misconduct in scientific publications. Neurología, 25(1), 1–4. doi:10.1016/S2173-5808(10)70001-8 .CrossRef
Microsoft. (2007). Test your document’s readability. https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Test-your-documents-readability-0adc0e9a-b3fb-4bde-85f4-c9e88926c6aa?ui=en-US&rs=en-US&ad=US#bm1 . Accessed November 27, 2014.
Moustafa, K. (2014). The disaster of the impact factor. Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9517-0 .
Nolan, P., & Lenski, G. E. (2006). Human societies: An introduction to macrosociology (10th ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Ramos, M. A., Melo, J. G., & Albuquerque, U. P. (2012). Citation behavior in popular scientific papers: What is behind obscure citations? The case of ethnobotany. Scientometrics, 92, 711–719. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0662-4 .CrossRef
Regmi, K. (2011). Ethical and legal issues in publication and dissemination of scholarly knowledge: A summary of the published evidence. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(1), 71–81. doi:10.1007/s10805-011-9133-4 .CrossRef
Smith, M. R., & Marx, L. (Eds.). (1994). Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tin, O. S., & Inggeris, J. (2000). Writing with different tools: The computer vs the pen. Jurnal Pendidikan Tigaenf, 2(4), 69–93.
Tsafrir, J. S., & Reis, T. (1990). Using the citation index to assess performance. British Medical Journal, 301(6764), 1333.CrossRef
Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2010). Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.06.002 .CrossRef
von Elm, E., Poglia, G., Walder, B., & Tramèr, M. R. (2004). Different patterns of duplicate publication: An analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA, 291(8), 974–980. doi:10.1001/jama.291.8.974 .CrossRef
Wade, N. (1975). Citation analysis: A new tool for science administrators. Science, 188(4187), 429–432. doi:10.1126/science.188.4187.429 .CrossRef
Wang, M., Yu, G., An, S., & Yu, D. (2012). Discovery of factors influencing citation impact based on a soft fuzzy rough set model. Scientometrics,. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0766-x .
Weber M. (1958) The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (Student’s ed.). New York: Scribner.
Weber, M. (1970a). Science as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 129–156). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Weber, M. (1970b). The social psychology of the world religions. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 267–301). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Webster, G. D., Jonason, P. K., & Schember, T. O. (2009). Hot topics and popular papers in evolutionary psychology: Analyses of title words and citation counts in evolution and human behavior, 1979–2008. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(3), 348–362.CrossRef
Wesel, M. V., Wyatt, S., & Haaf, J. (2014). What a difference a colon makes: How superficial factors influence subsequent citation. Scientometrics, 98(3), 1601–1615. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1154-x .CrossRef
Wyatt, S., Scharnhorst, A., Beaulieu, A., & Wouters, P. (2013). Introduction to virtual knowledge. In P. Wouters, A. Beaulieu, A. Scharnhorst, & S. Wyatt (Eds.), Virtual knowledge: Experimenting in the humanities and the social sciences (pp. 1–23). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - 作者单位：Maarten van Wesel (1) (2)
1. Department of Education and Research Support, University Library, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
2. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands - 刊物主题：Ethics; Philosophy of Science; Engineering, general; Biomedical Engineering; Medicine/Public Health, general; Philosophy;
- 出版者：Springer Netherlands
- ISSN：1471-5546
文摘
Criteria for the evaluation of most scholars’ work have recently received wider attention due to high-profile cases of scientific misconduct which are perceived to be linked to these criteria. However, in the competition for career advancement and funding opportunities almost all scholars are subjected to the same criteria. Therefore these evaluation criteria act as ‘switchmen’, determining the tracks along which scholarly work is pushed by the dynamic interplay of interests of both scholars and their institutions. Currently one of the most important criteria is the impact of publications. In this research, the extent to which publish or perish, a long standing evaluation criterion, led to scientific misconduct is examined briefly. After this the strive for high impact publications will be examined, firstly by identifying the period in which this became an important evaluation criterion, secondly by looking at variables contributing to the impact of scholarly papers by means of a non-structured literature study, and lastly by combining these data into a quantitative analysis. Keywords Publish or perish High impact Research evaluation Publication practices