Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences – InfoDoc MicroVeille

Citation penalties following sexual versus scientific misconduct allegations

Background and aim Citations in academia have long been regarded as a fundamental means of acknowledging the contribution of past work and promoting scientific advancement. The aim of this paper was to investigate the impact that misconduct allegations made against scholars have on the citations of their work, comparing allegations of sexual misconduct (unrelated to the research merit) and allegations of scientific misconduct (directly related to the research merit). Methods We collected citation data from the Web of Science (WoS) in 2021, encompassing 31,941 publications from 172 accused and control scholars across 18 disciplines. We also conducted two studies: one on non-academics (N = 231) and one on academics (N = 240). Results The WoS data shows that scholars accused of sexual misconduct incur a significant citation decrease in the three years after the accusations become public, while we do not detect a significant citation decrease for scholars accused of scientific misconduct. The study involving non-academics suggests that individuals are more averse to sexual than to scientific misconduct. Finally, contrary to the WoS data findings, a sample of academics indicates they are more likely to cite scholars accused of sexual misconduct than those accused of scientific misconduct. Conclusions In the first three years after accusations became public, scholars accused of sexual misconduct incur a larger citation penalty than scholars accused of scientific misconduct. However, when asked to predict their citing behavior, scholars indicated the reverse pattern, suggesting they might mis-predict their behavior or be reluctant to disclose their preferences.

A study on citation impact with age diversity among disciplines

With the ongoing evolution of scientific research collaboration in depth and breadth, the age distribution among paper collaborators is becoming incre…

Influence of political tensions on scientific productivity, citation impact, and knowledge combinations - Scientometrics

Over the past decades, international scientific collaborations have thrived as a vital avenue for generating new knowledge and advancing scientific breakthroughs. However, recent political tensions between the United States and China have raised concerns about potential ramifications on scientific productivity and innovation. While existing research highlighted the adverse effects of these tensions on scientific collaborations, limited attention focused on knowledge combinations. Drawing upon large-scale bibliometric datasets, we conduct a systematic study to examine the effects of the “China Initiative” on Chinese scientists’ productivity, citation impact, and knowledge combinations at the individual level. Firstly, we find the “China Initiative” has shown detrimental effects on scientific productivity and citation impact of Chinese scientists collaborating with U.S. scientists. Moreover, scientists from prestigious Chinese institutions and those with dual affiliations from both countries experienced greater negative impacts from the “China Initiative”. Furthermore, we explore knowledge combination patterns and find that Chinese scientists who collaborated with US scientists published less novel and interdisciplinary papers after the “China Initiative”. Interestingly, we observe a shift in collaborative behaviors, with an increase in the quantity and citations of domestic papers and collaborative papers with countries other than the United States. By shedding light on the influence of the “China Initiative”, our study contributes to the understanding of the complex interplay between political dynamics and scientific progress, highlighting the importance of an open academic environment in an era of geopolitical challenges.

On The Peer Review Reports: Does Size Matter? – InfoDoc MicroVeille

Effects of open access publishing on article metrics in Neuropsychopharmacology - Neuropsychopharmacology

Neuropsychopharmacology (NPP) offers the option to publish articles in different tiers of an open access (OA) publishing system: Green, Bronze, or Hybrid. Green articles follow a standard access (SA) subscription model, in which readers must pay a subscription fee to access article content on the publisher’s website. Bronze articles are selected at the publisher’s discretion and offer free availability to readers at the same article processing charge (APC) as Green articles. Hybrid articles are fully OA, but authors pay an increased APC to ensure public access. Here, we aimed to determine whether publishing tier affect the impact and reach of scientific articles in NPP. A sample of 6000 articles published between 2001–2021 were chosen for the analysis. Articles were separated by article type and publication year. Citation counts and Altmetric scores were compared between the three tiers. Bronze articles received significantly more citations than Green and Hybrid articles overall. However, when analyzed by year, Bronze and Hybrid articles received comparable citation counts within the past decade. Altmetric scores were comparable between all tiers, although this effect varied by year. Our findings indicate that free availability of article content on the publisher’s website is associated with an increase in citations of NPP articles but may only provide a moderate boost in Altmetric score. Overall, our results suggest that easily accessible article content is most often cited by readers, but that the higher APCs of Hybrid tier publishing may not guarantee increased scholarly or social impact.