Speaking of beefing up publications...

[Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>]

..Sharon Begley has made an article out of n=3D1.  "Dr. West was
asked to cite more studies that had appeared in the respiratory
journal"  The rest of the article does not have another example.
Below are quotations from the article of people who have
suspicions of somebody else but don't do the practice themselves
(italics); my comments in bold.  One person is quoted as having
been asked to make inappropriate changes; everything else is
unsubstantiated.   Was this article about anything?   Where is
the evidence that this of any significance?  IF is not a
particularly good thing in my view and is probably less important
than anecdotally perceived prestige of journals, but this is real
throw away journalism.

I don't usually read the WSJ but I remember they were able to
"Artfully Try To Boost Their Rankings" by picking up the story
that Dr. Atkins was obese at death without checking sources or
asking if maybe he had been on television the week before and was
seen to not be obese.  Journalism is a wonderful thing.  "What,
the article was not about anything?  I'm sorry, tomorrow's
edition is already out."

Martin Frank, executive director of the American Physiological
Society, which publishes 14 journals, is that "we have become
whores to the impact factor." He adds that his society doesn't
engage in these practice.

One strategy is to publish many review articles, says Vicki Cohn,
managing editor of Mary Ann Liebert Inc., a closely held New
Rochelle, N.Y., company that publishes 59 journals? "Journal
editors know how to increase their impact factor legitimately,"
says Ms. Cohn. "But there is growing suspicion that journals are
using nefarious means to pump it up."

But presumably she doesn't mean that she does this.

Journals also can resort to "best-of" features, such as running
annual summaries of their most notable papers. When Artificial
Organs did this in 2005, all 145 citations were to other
Artificial Organs papers. Editor Paul Malchesky says the feature
was conceived "as a service to the readership. It was not my
intention to affect our impact factor. In terms of how we run our
operation, I don't base that on impact factor."

Perfectly good explanation.  Journals can also resort to
'quality' papers to beef up their standing.

Dr. Wootton " =85 can state unequivocally that we do not attempt to
manipulate the JTT's impact factor. For a start, I wouldn't know
how to."

"If you look at journals that have a high impact factor, they
tend to be trendy," This is a tautology.

"There is pressure to publish studies that appeal to an academic
audience oriented toward basic research."  Isn't that what
academic journals do.

Journals' "questionable" steps to raise their impact factors
"affect the public," Ms. Liebert says. "Ultimately, funding is
allocated to scientists and topics perceived to be of the
greatest importance. If impact factor is being manipulated, then
scientists and studies that seem important will be funded perhaps
at the expense of those that seem less important."  Again,
presumably Liebert doesn't do this.

Richard D. Feinman,
Professor of Biochemistry
(718) 871-1374
FAX: (718) 270-3316
Publish with Nutrition & Metabolism
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com /home
Articles published within a day or two of acceptance.
Indexed PubMed, PubMed Central, ISI Thomson.

*********

Science Journals Artfully Try
To Boost Their Rankings
WSJ
By SHARON BEGLEY
June 5, 2006; Page B1

Excerpts from the article:

"Scientists and editors say scientific journals increasingly are
manipulating rankings -- called "impact factors" -- that are
based on how often papers they publish are cited by other
researchers."

"One questionable tactic is to ask authors to cite papers the
journal already has published,..."

"Journals also can resort to "best-of" features, such as running
annual summaries of their most notable papers"

"Journals can limit citations to papers published by competitors,
keeping the rivals' impact factors down"

"Scientists and publishers worry that the cult of the impact
factor is skewing the direction of research."

"Another concern is that impact factors, since they measure only
how many times other scientists cite a paper, say nothing about
whether journals publish studies that lead to something useful.
As a result, there is pressure to publish studies that appeal to
an academic audience oriented toward basic research."