The gaming of citation and authorship in academic journals: a warning from medicine

Abstract

The use of quantitative performance indicators to measure quality in academic publishing has undercut peer review’s qualitative assessment of articles submitted to journals. The two might have co-existed quite amicably were the most common indicator, citation, on which the journal impact factor is based, not been so susceptible to gaming. Gaming of citations is ubiquitous in academic publishing and referees are powerless to prevent it. The article gives some indication of how the citation game is played. It then moves on from academic publishing in general to look at academic publishing in medicine, a discipline in which authorship is also gamed. Many authors in medicine have made no meaningful contribution to the article that bears their names, and those who have contributed most are often not named as authors. Author slots are openly bought and sold. The problem is magnified by the academic publishing industry and by academic institutions, pleased to pretend that peer review is safeguarding scholarship. In complete contrast, the editors of medicine’s leading journals are scathing about just how ineffectual is peer review in medicine. Other disciplines should take note lest they fall into the mire in which medicine is sinking.

Voices of Innovation

“…This is due partly to questions about whether people can meaningfully contribute to extremely high numbers of quality papers (the "top" author in our analysis averages 75 papers per year), 9 and partly to additional questions about bias in citation networks (well-connected researchers are more likely to cite one another and to overlook early career researchers or those from less-known institutions). 10 While we acknowledge these limitations, the AI research job market nonetheless often measures productivity, impact, and competitiveness using these three metrics. Additionally, these metrics are more easily quantifiable and comparable than are qualitative assessments of research merit.…”

Responsible Research Assessment Should Prioritize Theory Development and Testing Over Ticking Open Science Boxes

“…While we appreciate methodological rigor, a rather narrow focus on a metric around it could lead to harmful consequences. The very act of defining a metric to quantify research quality or scientific rigor encourages researchers to "game" their way to better evaluations (Macdonald, 2022). Traditional metrics incentivize early career researchers to publish in high-impact journals to advance their academic careers.…”

Beware ‘persuasive communication devices’ when writing and reading scientific articles

“…Honorary authorship is the practice of including someone as an author on a paper because they are famous and/or important, even though their contribution to the article in question does not warrant their inclusion in the author list (device 22; honorary authorship). Honorary authorship is a well-known problem in medicine ( Flanagin et al, 1998 ; Macdonald, 2022 ).…”