| Title |
The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, July 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew E. Falagas, Vangelis G. Alexiou |
| Abstract |
A considerable part of the scientific community is, at least to some degree, involved in the "impact factor game". Editors strive to increase their journals' impact factor (IF) in order to gain influence in the fields of basic and applied research and scientists seek to profit from the "added value" of publishing in top IF journals. In this article we point out the most common "tricks" of engineering and manipulating the IF undertaken by a portion of professionals of the scientific publishing industry. They attempt to increase the nominator or decrease the denominator of the IF equation by taking advantage of certain design flaws and disadvantages of the IF that permit a degree of artificial and arbitrary inflation. Some of these practices, if not scientifically unethical, are at least questionable and should be abandoned. Editors and publishers should strive for quality through fair and thoughtful selection of papers forwarded for peer review and editorial comments that enhance the quality and scientific accuracy of a manuscript. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| North Macedonia | 3 | 20% |
| Germany | 2 | 13% |
| Mexico | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Brazil | 1 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Sweden | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 67% |
| Scientists | 5 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 3% |
| Denmark | 3 | 2% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 3 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 3% |
| Unknown | 135 | 82% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 16% |
| Librarian | 19 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 12% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 45 | 27% |
| Unknown | 15 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 35 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 27 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 39 | 24% |
| Unknown | 21 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2023.
All research outputs
#761,769
of 25,352,304 outputs
Outputs from Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis
#4
of 404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,533
of 96,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,352,304 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 404 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 96,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them