Did a ‘nasty’ publishing scheme help an Indian dental school win high rankings? | Science | AAAS

Saveetha Dental College in Chennai, India, incentivizes undergraduate students to write research manuscripts, a practice resulting in over 1,400 scholarly works published by the school in a single year. However, an investigation by Retraction Watch revealed that these papers often systematically cite other works by Saveetha faculty, inflating citation metrics to boost the institution’s global reputation. Officials at the college deny knowledge of any concerted effort to use self-citation to enhance their standing, though external observers criticize the strategy as misleading and potentially harmful. Concerns also extend beyond self-citation, with critics pointing to the questionable quality of undergraduate research and the coercive nature of pressuring students to publish for the institution’s benefit.


Here’s another important reason why academics should publish in open access titles: self interest – Walled Culture

“What this means in practice is that for the general public open access articles are even more beneficial than those published in traditional titles, since they frequently turn up as Wikipedia sources that can be consulted directly. They are also advantageous for the researchers who write them, since their work is more likely to be cited on the widely-read and influential Wikipedia than if the papers were not open access. As the research notes, this effect is even more pronounced for “articles with low citation counts” – basically, academic work that may be important but is rather obscure. This new paper provides yet another compelling reason why researchers should be publishing their work as open access as a matter of course: out of pure self interest.”

Do Articles Shared by Academic Medicine Social Media Influencers Drive Future Citation Rates? – Urology

Abstract:  Objectives

To assess the role of influential figures within social media (SoMe) in driving future citations.



All original articles published in the Journal of Urology (JU) and European Urology (EU) in 2018 were identified. For each article, number of mentions on any SoMe platform, article’s Twitter reach, and total citations were collected. Article characteristics such as type of study, article topic, and open access status were identified. Total academic research output was obtained for first and last authors of included articles.


Influential SoMe figures were defined as users that tweeted about included articles and had over 2000 followers. For these accounts, we collected total followers, total tweets, engagement statistics, verification status, and academic characteristics such as total citations and total prior publications. The impact of social media, article, and academic characteristics on future citations was assessed using panel data regression analysis.



We identified 394 articles with 8,895 total citations and 460 SoMe influencers. On panel data regression modeling, tweets about a specific article were associated with future citations (0.17 citations per tweet about an article, p<0.001). SoMe influencer characteristics were not associated with increased citations (p>0.05).

The following non-SoMe-associated characteristics were predictive of future citations (p<0.001): study type (prospective studies received 12.9 more citations than cross-sectional studies), open access status (4.3 citations more if open access, p<0.001), and previously well-published first and last authors.



While SoMe posts are associated with increased visibility and higher future citation rates, SoMe influencers do not appear to drive these outcomes. Instead, high quality and accessibility were more predictive of future citability.

The Beilstein-Institut collaborates with Lens.org

“Lens.org is a secure and open infrastructure to provide our readers with the most comprehensive and accurate overview of the impact of individual published articles. The discovery and citation tool is owned by Cambia, an independent non-profit social enterprise dedicated to democratizing problem solving using science and technology.

We are looking forward to our collaboration with Lens.org to support free, open and secure patent and scholarly searches while ensuring privacy and confidentiality.”

Evaluating open access publication and research impact in gynecologic oncology | International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer

Abstract:  Objective To evaluate whether a citation advantage exists for open access (OA) publications in gynecologic oncology.

Method A cross-sectional study of research and review articles published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer (IJGC) and in Gynecologic Oncology during 1980–2022. Bibliometric measures were compared between OA publications and non-OA publications. The role of authors in low/middle-income countries was assessed. We analyzed article characteristics associated with a high citations per year (CPY) score.

Results Overall, 18 515 articles were included, of which 2398 (13.0%) articles were published OA. The rate of OA has increased since 2007. During 2018–2022, the average proportion of articles published OA was 34.0% (range 28.5%–41.4%). OA articles had higher CPY (median (IQR), 3.0 (1.5–5.3) vs 1.3 (0.6–2.7), p<0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor; IJGC – r(23)=0.90, p<0.001, Gynecologic Oncology – r(23)=0.89, p<0.001. Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common among OA articles than among non-OA articles (5.5% vs 10.7%, p<0.001). Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common in the high CPY group than for articles without a high CPY score (8.0% vs 10.2%, p=0.003). The following article characteristics were found to be independently associated with a high CPY: publication after 2007, (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=4.9, 95% CI 4.3 to 5.7), research funding reported (aOR=1.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8), and being published OA (aOR=1.5, 95% CI 1.3–1.7). Articles written by authors in Central/South America or Asia had lower odds of having high CPY (Central/South America, aOR=0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8; Asia, aOR=0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.7).

Conclusion OA articles have a higher CPY, with a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor. OA publishing has increased since 2007, but articles written by authors in low/middle-income countries are under-represented among OA publications.

Citation differences across research funding and access modalities – ScienceDirect

Abstract:  This research provides insight into the complex relationship between open access, funding, and citation advantage. It presents an analysis of research articles and their citations in the Scopus database across 40 subject categories. The sample includes 12 categories from Health Sciences, 7 from Life Sciences, 10 from Physical Sciences & Engineering, and 11 from Social Sciences & Humanities. Specifically, the analysis focuses on articles published in 2016 and the citations they received from 2016 to 2020. Our findings show that open access articles published in hybrid journals receive considerably more citations than those published in gold open access journals. Articles under the hybrid gold modality are cited on average twice as much as those in the gold modality, regardless of funding. Furthermore, we found that funded articles generally obtain 50 % more citations than unfunded ones within the same publication modality. Open access repositories significantly increase citations, particularly for articles without funding. Thus, articles in open access repositories receive 50 % more citations than paywalled ones.


Wikipedia and open access

Wikipedia is a well-known platform for disseminating knowledge, and scientific sources, such as journal articles, play a critical role in supporting its mission. The open access movement aims to make scientific knowledge openly available, and we might intuitively expect open access to help further Wikipedia’s mission. However, the extent of this relationship remains largely unknown. To fill this gap, we analyze a large dataset of citations from Wikipedia and model the role of open access in Wikipedia’s citation patterns. We find that open-access articles are extensively and increasingly more cited in Wikipedia. What is more, they show a 15% higher likelihood of being cited in Wikipedia when compared to closed-access articles, after controlling for confounding factors. This open-access citation effect is particularly strong for articles with low citation counts, including recently published ones. Our results show that open access plays a key role in the dissemination of scientific knowledge, including by providing Wikipedia editors timely access to novel results. These findings have important implications for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in the field of information science and technology.

Altmetrics and their relationship with citation counts: a case of journal articles in physics | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

The first purpose of the present study is to investigate the coverage of journal articles in Physics in various sources of altmetrics. Secondly, the study investigates the relationship between altmetrics and citations. Finally, the study also investigates whether the relationship between citations and altmetrics was stronger or weaker for those articles that had been mentioned at least once in the sources of altmetrics.


The journal articles in Physics having at least one author from an Indian Institution and published during 2014–2018 in sources of altmetrics have been investigated. Altmetric.com was used for collecting altmetrics data. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (?) has been used as the data found to be skewed.


The highest coverage was found on Twitter (22.68%), followed by Facebook (3.62%) and blogs (2.18%). The coverage in the rest of the sources was less than 1%. The average Twitter mentions for journal articles tweeted at least once was found to be 4 (3.99) and for Facebook mentions, it was found to be 1.48. Correlations between Twitter mentions–citations and Facebook mentions–citation were found to be statistically significant but low to weak positive.

Research limitations/implications

The study concludes that due to the low coverage of journal articles, altmetrics should be used cautiously for research evaluation keeping in mind the disciplinary differences. The study also suggests that altmetrics can function as complementary to citation-based metrics.


The study is one of the first large scale altmetrics studies dealing with research in Physics. Also, Indian research has not been attended to in the altmetrics literature and the present study shall fill that void.

Citation advantage of COVID-19-related publications – Weishu Liu, Xuping Huangfu, Haifeng Wang, 2023

Abstract:  With the global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists from various disciplines responded quickly to this historical public health emergency. The sudden boom of COVID-19-related papers in a short period of time may bring unexpected influence to some commonly used bibliometric indicators. By a large-scale investigation using Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, this brief communication confirms the citation advantage of COVID-19-related papers empirically through the lens of Essential Science Indicators’ highly cited paper. More than 8% of COVID-19-related papers published during 2020 and 2021 were selected as Essential Science Indicators highly cited papers, which was much higher than the set global benchmark value of 1%. The citation advantage of COVID-19-related papers for different Web of Science categories/countries/journal impact factor quartiles was also demonstrated. The distortions of COVID-19-related papers’ citation advantage to some bibliometric indicators such as journal impact factor were discussed at the end of this brief communication.


Saudi universities entice top scientists to switch affiliations — sometimes with cash

“Research institutions in Saudi Arabia are gaming global university rankings by encouraging top researchers to change their main affiliations, sometimes in exchange for cash, and often with little obligation to do meaningful work. That’s the conclusion of a report that shows how, over the past decade, dozens of the world’s most highly cited researchers have switched their primary affiliations to universities in the country. That, in turn, has boosted the standing of Saudi Arabian institutions in university ranking tables, which consider the citation impacts of an institution’s researchers….”

Coverage and Correlations Between Open Citations in Crossref and Readership in Mendeley: Different Fields of Brazilian Science | Journal of Scientometric Research

Abstract:  This study dwells on the coverage of altmetric indicators in the Mendeley reference manager, citations in the Crossref platform, and the correlations between readers and citations of papers by researchers working in Brazil, according to different fields and subfields of knowledge.

We analyzed 152,727 scientific papers published between 2017-2018 by researchers working in Brazil.

The coverage of Brazilian papers by Mendeley is relatively high (87.91%) and 63% of Brazilian papers had citations in Crossref. In the Brazilian context, Mendeley readership is relatively high (average R2 reaching 70% in some areas).

The correlation between readers in Mendeley and citations in Crossref of Brazilian scientific output is between moderate and high. This indicates that Mendeley and Crossref data can be relevant for evaluating Brazilian science. The data reveal that Mendeley readership can, in many fields, predict citations. These data are generally higher and mor homogeneous than those found in the international researches. The scientific communication of international context (based on international journals) and Brazilian (heavily published in national open access journals) and the information sources used in the studies may partly explain the differences between them.

OpCitance: Citation contexts identified from the PubMed Central open access articles | Scientific Data

Abstract:  OpCitance contains all the sentences from 2 million PubMed Central open-access (PMCOA) articles, with 137 million inline citations annotated (i.e., the “citation contexts”). Parsing out the references and citation contexts from the PMCOA XML files was non-trivial due to the diversity of referencing style. Only 0.5% citation contexts remain unidentified due to technical or human issues, e.g., references unmentioned by the authors in the text or improper XML nesting, which is more common among older articles (pre-2000). PubMed IDs (PMIDs) linked to inline citations in the XML files compared to citations harvested using the NCBI E-Utilities differed for 70.96% of the articles. Using an in-house citation matcher, called Patci, 6.84% of the referenced PMIDs were supplemented and corrected. OpCitance includes fewer total number of articles than the Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus, but OpCitance has 160 thousand unique articles, a higher inline citation identification rate, and a more accurate reference mapping to PMIDs. We hope that OpCitance will facilitate citation context studies in particular and benefit text-mining research more broadly.



New preprint explores tracing data reuse and citations – Scholarly Communications Lab | ScholCommLab

“In our digital era, scientists are certainly sharing and reusing open data. Yet it remains unclear how widespread data reuse and citation practices are within academic disciplines, and why scientists cite—or do not cite—data in their research work. 

In a recent preprint from the Meaningful Data Counts project, Kathleen Gregory (postdoctoral researcher at the University of Vienna and University of Ottawa) and fellow ScholCommLab members—Anton Boudreau Ninkov, Chantal Ripp, Emma Roblin, Isabella Peters, and Stefanie Haustein—surveyed nearly 2,500 academic authors to explore their practices, preferences, and motivations for reusing and citing data, and how these practices vary by discipline. 

In this interview, we ask Kathleen about how she got involved in study, why some researchers cite and reuse data while others do not, and how her work informs data citation policies and standards in the scholarly community….”

Fifteen years of Open Data Allows Advancements in Landsat Use and Research | U.S. Geological Survey

“On this day in 2008, the USGS announced their plan to ‘open’ the USGS EROS Landsat archives, making all Landsat data available to download at no charge, to all users worldwide. Fifteen years later, in the “Year of Open Science”, Landsat continues to lead how Earth Observation data is utilized, and how Landsat data is used to support science and research efforts. …

The graph below displays number of Landsat-related citations (orange line) and the cost per scene (blue line) from 1970 to 2022. As expected, citations increased greatly after the data became freely available starting in December 2008….”