Bibliographic record
Abstract
T oo bad it is not ‘‘A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away . . . ’’ Instead, it is the 21st century and European, Canadian, and American scientists are now in the grips of a menace that threatens their livelihood: the journal impact factor (a proprietary calculation based on journal citations and produced by the monolithic news and information empire Thomson Reuters) is being used in many places to determine academic employment, rank, tenure, and funding. In the past, few voices have protested the abusive power associated with journal impact factor, and publishers generally shrank in terror at the prospect of their journals being subjected to the ‘‘death penalty’’—removal from the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor listing. However, in 2007, the Executive Director of the powerful Rockefeller University Press, along with the Executive Editors of the Journal of Experimental Medicine and the Journal of Cell Biology, courageously questioned the validity and reliability of the journal impact factor calculations. These editorials (by Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, and Emma Hill) emboldened others to voice concerns about the use of an unverifiable and proprietary metric—journal impact factor—to evaluate the quality of scientific work. In the initial 1977 film (now designated ‘‘Episode IV’’) of the epic Star Wars movie series by George Lucas, the Galactic Empire uses a lethal show of force (the Death Star) to destroy the relatively insignificant planet Alderaan in order to frighten the rest of the galactic inhabitants (particularly those on the larger planets) into submission. Apparently, Thomson Reuters has decided to use a similar tactic: wielding its enormous power in a show of force against a tiny journal. As has been widely described, the journal impact factor is calculated by summing the total citations during a given year to articles published in the previous 2 years and dividing this by the number of ‘‘items’’ (a number derived secretively by Thomson Reuters) published in the journal during that same 2-year period. The ability of journal editors and publishers (particularly large and influential ones) to manipulate (and negotiate) the journal impact factor to achieve higher values has been well documented. Unfortunately, journals from small subspecialty fields are at a distinct disadvantage with fewer articles for possible citation, a smaller population of investigators, and little leverage to finagle higher journal impact factor values. Nonetheless, 2 clever scientists, Harm K. Schutte and Jan G. Svec, who work in a small scientific field published in the year 2007 an editorial in the official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP)—Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica (published by S. Karger AG, Basel)—in which they cited all 66 articles published in that journal during the years 2005 and 2006. This strategy of self-citation raised the journal impact factor from a value of 0.655 for 2006 to 1.439 for 2007 and jumped the journal’s ranking by 9 places in the subject category of ‘‘Rehabilitation’’ (which only contains 27 journals). For investigators whose only scholarly outlet is publishing in this journal, such changes in journal status could profoundly affect their ability to compete for an academic livelihood. This permutation probably would have gone unnoticed but for a letter published in the September 11, 2008, issue of Nature. Subsequent reaction by Thomson Reuters was swift: just 4 weeks later on October 9, 2008, in Nature, James Testa reported that self-citation is ‘‘reviewed each year’’ and that journals will be removed from Journal Citation Reports until the ‘‘problem of excessive self-citation resolves and we can publish an accurate impact factor.’’ One strategy by journal editors to manipulate the journal impact factor has been to demand that authors cite articles from recent years of the journal (ie, self-citation). Thomson Reuters does not provide any criteria for acceptable self-citation, although it has been reported that up to 20% self-citation is common in most journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports. Received December 29, 2008. Accepted for publication December 29, 2008.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.046 | 0.054 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".