Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations

Abstract

How much is the h-index of an editor of a well ranked journal improved due to citations which occur after his or her appointment? Scientific recognition within academia is widely measured nowadays by the number of citations or h-index. Our dataset is based on a sample of four editors from a well ranked journal (impact factor - IF - greater than 2). The target group consists of two editors who seem to benefit by their position through an increased citation number (and subsequently h-index) within journal. The total amount of citations for the target group is bigger than 600. The control group is formed by another set of two editors from the same journal whose relations between their positions and their citation records remain neutral. The total amount of citations for the control group is more than 1200. The timespan for which pattern of citations has been studied is 1975-2015. Previous coercive citations for a journal benefit (increase its IF) has been signaled. To the best of our knowledge, this is a pioneering work on coercive citations for personal (or editors) benefit. Editorial teams should be aware about this type of potentially unethical behavior and act accordingly.

23 pages, 6 figures, 5 tables, 45 references, published in Publications (MDPI), 2017 (http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/15). The title of published version is slightly changed

References in corpus (6)

• An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output
• An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship
• Quantifying the influence of scientists and their publications: Distinguish prestige from popularity
• Effects of Publications in Proceedings on the Measure of the Core Size of Coauthors
• Assessing the true role of coauthors in the h-index measure of an author scientific impact
• Coherent measures of the impact of co-authors in peer review journals and in proceedings publications

Cited by in corpus (3)

• Identification of the most important external features of highly cited scholarly papers through 3 (i.e., Ridge, Lasso, and Boruta) feature selection data mining methods
• Theoretical research without projects
• Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts -- editors' perspective