IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0081871.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incorrect Citations Give Unfair Credit to Review Authors in Ecology Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Mariana C Teixeira
  • Sidinei M Thomaz
  • Thaisa S Michelan
  • Roger P Mormul
  • Thamis Meurer
  • José Vitor B Fasolli
  • Márcio J Silveira

Abstract

The number of citations that papers receive has become significant in measuring researchers' scientific productivity, and such measurements are important when one seeks career opportunities and research funding. Skewed citation practices can thus have profound effects on academic careers. We investigated (i) how frequently authors misinterpret original information and (ii) how frequently authors inappropriately cite reviews instead of the articles upon which the reviews are based. To reach this aim, we carried a survey of ecology journals indexed in the Web of Science and assessed the appropriateness of citations of review papers. Reviews were significantly more often cited than regular articles. In addition, 22% of citations were inaccurate, and another 15% unfairly gave credit to the review authors for other scientists' ideas. These practices should be stopped, mainly through more open discussion among mentors, researchers and students.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariana C Teixeira & Sidinei M Thomaz & Thaisa S Michelan & Roger P Mormul & Thamis Meurer & José Vitor B Fasolli & Márcio J Silveira, 2013. "Incorrect Citations Give Unfair Credit to Review Authors in Ecology Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-4, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0081871
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081871
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081871
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081871&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0081871?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. André Andrian Padial & João Carlos Nabout & Tadeu Siqueira & Luis Mauricio Bini & José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho, 2010. "Weak evidence for determinants of citation frequency in ecological articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Aksnes, Dag W. & Rip, Arie, 2009. "Researchers' perceptions of citations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 895-905, July.
    3. Mathieu Leblond, 2012. "Author self-citations in the field of ecology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 943-953, June.
    4. Gunther Eysenbach, 2006. "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-1, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    2. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    3. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2010. "Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: could the latter ever be preferable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 821-833, September.
    4. John N. Parker & Stefano Allesina & Christopher J. Lortie, 2013. "Characterizing a scientific elite (B): publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 469-480, February.
    5. Alexander Cuntz & Frank Mueller-Langer & Alessio Muscarnera & Prince C. Oguguo & Marc Scheufen, 2024. "Access to science and innovation in the developing world," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 78, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    6. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    7. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    8. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    9. Mingyang Wang & Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1575-1595, June.
    10. João Carlos Nabout & Micael Rosa Parreira & Fabrício Barreto Teresa & Fernanda Melo Carneiro & Hélida Ferreira Cunha & Luciana Souza Ondei & Samantha Salomão Caramori & Thannya Nascimento Soares, 2015. "Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): the trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 357-364, January.
    11. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    12. Civera, Alice & Lehmann, Erik E. & Paleari, Stefano & Stockinger, Sarah A.E., 2020. "Higher education policy: Why hope for quality when rewarding quantity?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    13. Hans P. W. Bauer & Gabriel Schui & Alexander Eye & Günter Krampen, 2013. "How does scientific success relate to individual and organizational characteristics? A scientometric study of psychology researchers in the German-speaking countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 523-539, February.
    14. Steffen Lemke & Athanasios Mazarakis & Isabella Peters, 2021. "Conjoint analysis of researchers' hidden preferences for bibliometrics, altmetrics, and usage metrics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(6), pages 777-792, June.
    15. M. Ryan Haley & M. Kevin McGee, 2023. "A flexible functional method for jointly valuing journal visibility and author citation count," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3337-3346, June.
    16. Martorell Cunil, Onofre & Otero González, Luis & Durán Santomil, Pablo & Mulet Forteza, Carlos, 2023. "How to accomplish a highly cited paper in the tourism, leisure and hospitality field," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    17. Gualberto Buela-Casal & Izabela Zych, 2012. "What do the scientists think about the impact factor?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 281-292, August.
    18. Haley, M. Ryan & McGee, M. Kevin, 2020. "Jointly valuing journal visibility and author citation count: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    19. Thomas Cowhitt & Joshua Travis Brown & Anthony Lising Antonio, 2024. "The emergence and evolution of ambiguous ideas: an innovative application of social network analysis to support systematic literature reviews," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 7005-7033, November.
    20. Martin Fenner, 2013. "What Can Article-Level Metrics Do for You?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-4, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0081871. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.