Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Problems with “natural selection of academic papers”

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this short communication we give critical comments on the paper of Perakakis et al. (Scientometrics 85(2):553–559, 2010) on “Natural selection of academic papers”. The criticism mainly focusses on their unbalanced criticism of peer review and their negative evaluation of the link of peer review with commercial publishing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College and Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). The usefulness of peer review for selecting manuscripts for publication: A utility analysis taking as an example an high-impact journal. PloS ONE, 5(6), e11344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Egghe, L. (2011). Journal peer review as an information retrieval process. Preprint.

  • Davis, P. (2011). http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/pmd8/.

  • Hernon, P., & Schwartz, C. (2011). Editorial. Modification of peer review? Library and Information Science Research, 33, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandavilli, A. (2011). Trial by twitter. Blogs and tweets are ripping papers apart within days of publication, leaving researchers unsure how to react. Nature, 469, 286–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C. A. (2010). Researcher tools for evaluating trustworthiness: CrossCheck plagiarism screening and CrossMark. Library Connect, 3(1), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M., & Trachana, V. (2010). Natural selection of academic papers. Scientometrics, 85(2), 553–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R. (2006). After the journal impact factor and the web impact factor a referee factor enters the fray: Some comments. ISSI Newsletter, 2(2), 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R., & Lancaster, J. (2006). Referee factor would reward a vital contribution. Nature, 441, 812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universiteit Hasselt (Uhasselt), Campus Diepenbeek, Agoralaan, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    L. Egghe

  2. Universiteit Antwerpen (UA), Stadscampus, Venusstraat 35, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium

    L. Egghe

Authors
  1. L. Egghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Egghe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Egghe, L. Problems with “natural selection of academic papers”. Scientometrics 88, 663–667 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0395-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0395-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation