National scientific performance evolution patterns: Retrenchment, successful expansion, or overextension

Factors, components and dynamics: investigation of journal self-citation and citation by equal opportunity model

The effectivity of journal impact factor (JIF) is questioned in evaluating academic players. Coercive self-citation was widely criticized and Clarivate annually suppressed journals with high journal self-citation (JSC) rates. Recently, some journals significantly increased their articles but their JIFs and JSC rates were diversified which lacks reasonable explanations. Here, we revealed the complexities of the dynamical interactions among different influence factors and different components of journal citation. Journal citation frequencies have strong correlations with JSC rates regarding citable items, significant correlations with numbers of journals' articles and negative significant correlations with JSC rates regarding total citations. Journal citation consists of JSC, intradisciplinary non-JSC and interdisciplinary non-JSC. JSC has the quickest dynamic and interdisciplinary non-JSC has the slowest dynamic while most journals are more cited by interdisciplinary citations. Journal citation is initially decided by the number of citable items. Journal's share (citing articles) in related disciplines influence JSC and intradisciplinary non-JSC positively and negatively, respectively. Multiple citations promoted by the increase in articles, the skewness of the topic profile, preference-related self-citation and anomalous self-citation are of benefit to citation. The complex dynamical interactions result in increment effects of the number of articles acting on JIF, which is stronger for JSC and citable items. The increase in articles also promotes intradisciplinary non-JSC when the journal's shares in related disciplines are low. This process will be reversed after the journal's shares become high enough which may finally decrease its impact factor. It is quicker for the journal with a stronger intradisciplinary citation. The calculational results of the average JIFs of selected journals agree with the statistical results. In addition, we can explain the related situations of some journals. Finally, we suggested that the JSC rate in terms of citable items should be considered for judging the level of JSC.

The Scientific Impact Derived From the Disciplinary Profiles

The disciplinary profiles of the mean citation rates across 22 research areas were analyzed for 107 countries/territories that published at least 3,000 papers that exceeded the entrance thresholds for the Essential Science Indicators (ESI; Clarivate Analytics) during the period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019. The matrix of pairwise differences between any two profiles was analyzed with a non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) algorithm, which recovered a two-dimensional geometric space describing these differences. These two dimensions, Dim1 and Dim2, described 5,671 pairwise differences between countries' disciplinary profiles with a sufficient accuracy (stress = 0.098). A significant correlation (r = 0.81, N = 107, p < 0.0001) was found between Dim1 and the Indicator of a Nation's Scientific Impact (INSI), which was computed as a composite of the average and the top citation rates. The scientific impact ranking of countries derived from the pairwise differences between disciplinary profiles seems to be more accurate and realistic compared with more traditional citation indices.

Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model

As part of moves towards open knowledge practices, making peer review open is cited as a way to enable fuller scrutiny and transparency of assessments around research. There are now many flavours of open peer review in use across scholarly publishing, including where reviews are fully attributable and the reviewer is named. This study examines whether there is any evidence of bias in two areas of common critique of open, non-anonymous (named) peer review – and used in the post-publication, peer review system operated by the open-access scholarly publishing platform F1000Research. First, is there evidence of potential bias where a reviewer based in a specific country assesses the work of an author also based in the same country? Second, are reviewers influenced by being able to see the comments and know the origins of a previous reviewer? Based on over 4 years of open peer review data, we found some weak evidence that being based in the same country as an author may influence a reviewer’s decision, while there was insufficient evidence to conclude that being able to read an existing published review prior to submitting a review encourages conformity. Thus, while immediate publishing of peer review reports appears to be unproblematic, caution may be needed when selecting same-country reviewers in open systems if other studies confirm these results.