http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp
Citation Mania: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
C
articles usually focus on key developments. Citations that are relevant to the research topic direct the attention of the readers to an important scientific problem. The cited work by previous researchers also helps us to analyze and model the results and strengthen the scientific arguments. A proper set of citations thus becomes crucial for making a research paper stand out among other articles that appear in the field. The Bad: Although the original intent of citations was to support the hypothesis and discussion of results published in a scientific paper, they are now being appraised to draw various citation metrics. These include Journal Impact Factor, Immediacy Index, Citation Half-life, h-index, most-cited researchers, etc. While these metrics provide useful analytics, improper use of such data to compare journal performance or merit of researchers among different disciplines is likely to yield erratic outcomes. For example, the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of Clarivate Analytics is determined from the total citations in a given year to the published research articles during the previous two years. (The number of editorial articles is not considered in the denominator, while citations to these articles are included in the numerator.) It is worth noting that the JIF is dependent on the popularity of the discipline and the number of researchers working in that field. Many seminal papers are late bloomers and gain attention only during later years. Because of the lack of citations in early years, these papers do not get well-deserved recognition in short-term evaluations. It is important to note that the merit of an individual published paper cannot be evaluated on the basis of JIF alone. Often the JIF is driven by a few review articles or research articles, and hence it does not reflect the impact of all the journal’s published papers. As shown in our previous editorial, < 10% of the papers drive the major fraction of the citations (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.8b01443) in high-impact journals. Another caveat is the inclusion of citations to papers that have been previously retracted or withdrawn. Despite these disparities, many administrators and authors rely on JIF to judge the impact of published papers or the merit of the published work. The Ugly: Because citations reflect the impact of published papers and the individual author’s h-index, we are now seeing an increased number of self-citations in published papers. Occasionally, we also see reviewers demanding a number of citations to their own work without proper justification. (Note: Our editors carefully evaluate manuscript reviews and look for any unusual reference request in the review. We ensure the validity of such citations and their relevance to the work being discussed.) A group of authors can engage in a systematic manipulation of citations, often termed “citation cartels” (see, for example,
ACS Energy Lett. 2019.4:471-472. Downloaded from pubs.acs.org by 109.94.223.187 on 02/08/19. For personal use only.
itations are an integral part of recognizing the impact of an article in the scientific literature. The growing journal portfolios, increasing number of published papers, and the growth of scientific disciplines have led to a steep growth in overall citations. The InCites data of Clarivate Analytics record a growth of ∼20% in published papers and ∼50% in citations between the five-year periods of 2008−2012 and 2013−2017 in the research field of chemistry (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Total papers (left axis) and total citations in chemistry (right axis). Each data set represents a five-year period. The citation data are included in the figure. The data were collected from InCites Essential Science Indicators (Citation Trend, Research Field: CHEMISTRY), Clarivate Analytics.
For materials science, this growth is even steeper with a 44% increase in published papers and a 122% increase in citations during the same time period. Many databases harvest the citation data to identify factors such as emerging topics, journal impact factor, most-cited researchers, among others. It is left to the consumers or readers to judge the validity of these metrics and evaluate the merit of scientific advances. In many respects, these citation metrics serve as a valuable tool to gauge the impact of a research topic or identify emerging research areas. The growth in citations has also exposed some positive and negative implications in scientific research. Different aspects of citations and citation mania are discussed in this Editorial. The Good: Citations provide useful background information to readers and help to gauge the advances made in any given field. They not only illustrate pioneering efforts made in the past but also update the readers with current state-of-theart activities (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jz500430j). Many journals now directly link the citations to the original scientific paper, making it easy for readers to access the cited work. While the citations in review articles provide a collection of references to a vast array of papers, citations in research © 2019 American Chemical Society
Published: February 8, 2019 471
DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.9b00016 ACS Energy Lett. 2019, 4, 471−472
Editorial
Cite This: ACS Energy Lett. 2019, 4, 471−472
ACS Energy Letters
Editorial
https://retractionwatch.com/2017/01/18/spot-citationcartel/). Similarly, scientific journals can also join in such citation cartels. Each year Web of Science suppresses titles and indicates “Editorial Expression of Concern” for journal titles to investigate self-citation practices (see, for example, http:// ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/ JCRGroup/titleSuppressions.html). Although such practices are statistically negligible at present, they may gain traction in the coming years. As the scientific community and administrators put more emphasis on citation metrics, we are likely to see an increase in such unethical practices. Today we reap the benefits of the scientific advances made by early pioneer scientists. These scientists cared for neither journal impact factor nor their h-index. It is important for us to maintain the honor system and continue this legacy. By maintaining scientific integrity while writing a paper and/or reviewing/editing a paper, we can continue to maintain an unbiased integrity in scientific literature.
Prashant V. Kamat, Editor-in-Chief
■
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, United States
AUTHOR INFORMATION
ORCID
Prashant V. Kamat: 0000-0002-2465-6819 Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
472
DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.9b00016 ACS Energy Lett. 2019, 4, 471−472
