Grim tales about the impact factor and the h-index in the Web of Science and the Journal Citation Reports databases: reflections on Vanclay’s criticism

This paper reflects on the most current and some of the recent contributions of JK Vanclay, focusing on his methods, findings, and criticism about the journal citations reports and the web of science databases, the journal impact factor and the h-index. It is argued and demonstrated that some of the recent papers of the author about scientometric issues, measures and sources show so much demagoguery, ignorance and arrogance, have so much prejudice and bias, so profound errors in using the databases, calculating metrics, and interpreting search results that the papers are very unlikely to be meant as a genuine contribution from an academic who is a graduate of—among others—Oxford University, professor and dean in a respected university, a well-published and well-cited author and a recipient of the Queen’s Award (all the above in forest science). The papers are much more likely to serve as props for a staged, mock-up scenario based on slipshod research in an experiment, to illustrate the deficiencies in the processes and in the assessment of scholarly publishing productivity and impact in order to present the idealized solution of Vanclay: using the h-index, portrayed as the Prince, mounted on the shoulder of the White Horse, Google Scholar.