RE: Covert Article Republishing Discovered in Emerald/MCB UP 1989-2003

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

Why did some authors cite one duplicate article and not the other?  This
is a very good question and will be a follow-up to this study.  
Researchers have attempted to figure out why authors cite one journal over
another, but needed to compare journals with different articles.  We now
have a unique dataset that may be similar to identical twin studies.  
Based on some quick searching I did while preparing for the Charleston
Conference, some of the duplicates were cited more than their "twin".  
Only about a third of Emerald journals have impact factors, however, which
may cut down on the size of this study.  If Emerald releases lists of all
of the article duplication (not just the ones I posted), we may have a
suitable dataset for analysis.

--Phil Davis


At 06:14 PM 11/10/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Or perhaps one may infer that the browsing/reading of entire issues of any
>given journal is a thing of the past.
>
>Perhaps this goes to show that article level access is truly the preferred
>model of information/research delivery and that the construct of the
>journal as a whole is dying out.
>
>An interesting tangent study could be done to see which of the two
>republished articles was indexed most and thus ended up being cited most
>often.
>
>Jill Emery
>University of Houston