We need informative citation metrics that will be less prone to misuse and gaming
Citation and other metrics are widely misused, but when properly used, they can be valuable. Science itself thrives on quantitative measurement. Quantitative indicators aim to provide objective data instead of biased beliefs. Here, we focus on citation metrics in appraising scientists1 for hiring, promotion, tenure, funding, selection for some award, recognition or bonus, or other reasons. Many tricks exist to game citation metrics (Box); however, proper use of metrics may overcome these deficiencies. Generic challenges that we describe here may partly apply also to larger, more composite entities such as the appraisal of journals, institutions or large research portfolios, for example, at a national level.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Cronin B, Sugimoto CR, editors. Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2014.
- 2. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, et al. Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 2015; 520: 429–431.
- 3. Ioannidis JP, Klavans R, Boyack KW. Multiple citation indicators and their composite across scientific disciplines. PLoS Biol 2016; 14: e1002501.
- 4. Simone JV. Understanding academic medical centers: Simone's Maxims. Clin Cancer Res 1999; 5: 2281–2285.
- 5. Biagioli M. Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature 2016; 535: 201.
- 6. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 2012; 489: 179.
- 7. Ioannidis JPA, Thombs BD. A user's guide to inflated and manipulated impact factors. Eur J Clin Invest 2019; 49: e13151.
- 8. Van Noorden R, Singh Chawla D. Hundreds of extreme self‐citing scientists revealed in new database. Nature 2019; 572: 578–579.
- 9. Davis P. The emergence of a citation cartel. The Scholarly Kitchen 2012; 10 Apr http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/10/emergence-of-a-citation-cartel (viewed Sept 2019).
- 10. Wilhite AW, Fong EA. Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science 2012; 335: 542–543.
- 11. Mowatt G, Shirran L, Grimshaw JM, et al. Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. JAMA 2002 Jun 5; 287: 2769–2771.
- 12. Ioannidis JPA, Klavans R, Boyack KW. Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days. Nature 2018; 561: 167–169.
- 13. Ioannidis JPA, Baaas J, Klavans R, Boyack KW. A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field. PLoS Biol 2019; 17: e3000384.
- 14. Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L. When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA 1997; 278: 579–585.
- 15. Sauermann H, Haeussler C. Authorship and contribution disclosures. Sci Adv 2017; 3: e1700404.
No relevant disclosures.