The log Statistical Papers, with editorial workplace at the University of Dortmund rejects all manuscript submissions in the event that writers do not cite documents out of this journal that is springer-published. The editors claim it’s maybe perhaps not about effect element rigging.
Every once in awhile, experts publishing their work with book encounter a request from editors to cite some random earlier in the day documents from exact same log. Why? One explanation: it does increase the effect element. In reality, for many journals it really is perhaps the unofficial rule that such journal-self-citations are anticipated, or your paper will soon be refused. Some researchers abide ahead of time, to create editors delighted. Many other people have trouble with the idea that they find unethical. The German editor for the Springer log Statistical Papers will show you for your requirements right here why this is basically the scientifically proper and way that is perfectly objective run a log.
A conversation grew up on Twitter recently, for the duration of which neither the log maybe not the editor had been called.
Mark Hayter, teacher of medical at University of Hull in British and a log editor himself, tweeted:
“A PhD student of mine had a paper accepted – one condition of acceptance had been that she ratings her recommendations and includes any appropriate present documents through the journal that is accepting”
Then he included the log was predatory that is“Not. Well known journal, person in COPE and from a sizable,international publishing house” as well as specified that “They asked her to examine her sources you need to include ‘recent, relevant’ documents through the accepting Journal. No papers that are specific suggested“. Ended up, Hayter had not been alone with that experience:
A reviewer ( maybe maybe not editor) when told us to include citations from that log within my revision. a journal that is top. Very strange. I obtained within the practice of incorporating a few cites that are journal wherever I’m submitting and very nearly forget to take into account the ethics. This really is waking me up.
More anecdotes arrived, like that one through the part of medication:
Certainly, ways to falsely inflate impact facets.
There was clearly another cardiology that is international historically that insisted you cite their ethics declaration (published as a paper).
It had been cited a great deal, their impact relocated from circa 2 to over 6 in three years. #gaming #unethical
The majority of the replies were critical, similar to this advice through the Hindawi research integrity supervisor Matt Hodgkinson:
For several we understand, the writers may have valued the Twitter outrage after which simply did exactly exactly what the editor said and quoted some random documents from the log. Why making enemies, as opposed to making documents? Some researchers revealed also understanding for the policy:
We have blended feelings about it. One argument is the fact that you are targeting a community of scholars if you choose a particular journal. It really is rational to test what they have previously stated regarding your subject while the rational spot to start may be the log you’ve chosen.
Now Professor Stephen John Senn of Luxembourg Institute of wellness is really a statistician, he can clearly concur that the following policy for the log Statistical Papers is okay since it is. After all, in the event your work is printed in the type of a paper which is about data, you sure must cite something out of this specially significant journal, exactly exactly what aided by the title, “Statistical Papers“, right?
It was the e-mail a audience forwarded if you ask me, a recently received respond to their refused manuscript distribution:
Dear …., your paper has some merits. Nevertheless, because of the enormous quantity of submissions we’re getting recently we’ve made a decision to give attention to documents that are regarding previous work posted within our log. And also this will not be seemingly the situation together with your paper as you aren’t citing articles of Statistical Papers. Furthermore, the guide list isn’t of good quality: often the pages associated with the log articles are missing.Thank you for offering us the chance to think about your work.Yours sincerelyChristine H. MьllerEditor-in-Chief, Statistical Papers
The EiC was contacted by me Christine Mьller, teacher of data in engineering during the Technical University of Dortmund (TU Dortmund) in Germany. She responded, confirming the e-mail authenticity:
“Due to your amount that is high of, we need to set strict requirements, and two of those would be the quality for the paper while the relationship with other documents of our log. In the event that quality is okay and just Statistical Papers is certainly not cited then we often request a resubmission. Nonetheless, right right here the standard, suggested by the guide list, appears to be dubious.”
I happened to be unconvinced this training had nothing in connection with the Journal effect Factor (presently at 1.345 for analytical documents) and in addition puzzled the way the editors could judge a manuscript entirely on such basis as its reference formatting (“page numbers missing”). Mьller then clarified:
“we want to ensure that submissions fit into the log and an indicator that is good usually exactly how well its linked to past work with our log. Note as you may see from checking our published articles (the self-citation rate of SP is not higher than that of comparable journals and you may be aware that anyway only cites of within 3 years affect the IF) that we generally do not judge that solely by whether another SP-paper is cited or not. Needless to say the standard of a paper is certainly not judged because of the guide formatting. Nevertheless, we possess the experience that the sloppy guide list is an indication of the sloppy written paper. We believe that editors of other journals could have the exact same experience and is likely to make comparable conclusions. Hence the remark regarding the guide area had been intended as being an ongoing solution to your writer.”
That e-mail ended up being finalized by Christine Mьller additionally the other two editors that are chief Carsten Jentsch, professor of statistics in economics at exact same TU Dortmund, and Werner Mьller, teacher at Institute for Applied Statistics at University of Linz, Austria.
The journal’s writers seem to follow these unofficial editorial guidelines. We looked over the initial 3 recently posted studies in Statistical Papers (all incidentally from Asia), one sources 4 documents here, another recommendations 2, 3rd sources 1 paper in same log. It is the scope of Statistical Papers really that slim? This is exactly what the journal website states in this respect:
“Statistical Papers offers a forum for the presentation and assessment that is critical of methods. In specific, the log encourages the conversation of methodological fundamentals also prospective applications.
This log stresses analytical techniques which have broad applications; nevertheless, it will offer attention that is special analytical practices which can be highly relevant to the financial and social sciences. As well as research that is original, visitors will see study articles, brief records, reports on analytical computer pc pc software, issue area, and book reviews”
Nowhere it’s mentioned that the submissions must cite some random previous papers in exact same log to suit the range. The assigned publisher administrator from Springer decided to go with never to answer my email messages, and exactly why as long as they. The editors do their utmost to enhance the journal’s citation index.
But also for argument’s sake, if Statistical Papers is a unique field that is separate, undoubtedly the Editor-in-Chief will likely to be expert for the certain technology section of “Statistical Papers”? Unfortuitously, this woman is certainly not. a lengthy listing of magazines is posted by Christine Mьller on the TU Dortmund web site, from 1984 till research topics in clinical psychology now, presumably her whole research production, since maybe perhaps perhaps not otherwise specified. Yet simply two of Mьller’s analytical papers showed up in her own log Statistical Papers, that is posted since 1960 (until 1995, even yet in German). Her namesake editor colleague Werner Mьller even offers simply two documents in this log to exhibit, while Jentsch will not list a publication that is single Statistical Papers on their site.
Essentially, they have been industry outsiders associated with the obscure niche control technology of Statistical Papers, having hardly (or otherwise not after all) published here by themselves. Or even their very own journal’s impact element is too low and requires boosting before Mьller, Mьller & Jentsch ponder over it being a place?
In the event that you had comparable experiences with editors imposing own-journal citation needs, please think over sharing these below into the remark part.