Lost in citations: Why standard metrics fail archaeology and regional scholarship. A critical analysis of bibliographic indexing and research evaluation.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32028/exnovo-vol-9-pp.55-98Keywords:
Bibliographic Indexes, Research Metrics, Citation Analysis, Scientific Publishing Ethics, Archaeology and PublishingAbstract
This article explores the development, structure, and implications of bibliographic indexes and research metrics in contemporary academic publishing. It traces the historical evolution of indexing services from early systems like Index Medicus to modern platforms such as Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Dimensions, and OpenAlex. The study highlights how varying inclusion criteria, ranking algorithms, and citation policies among databases produce significantly different representations of scholarly output. It critically examines key metrics (e.g., Impact Factor, h-index, CiteScore, SNIP, SJR), assessing their impact on journals, authors, and institutions. It shows how current evaluation systems, including issues of classification and disciplinary bias, does not reflect the quality and impact of research outputs in the Humanities and Social Sciences, and especially in Archaeology. This is particularly evident in Italian prehistoric archaeology, explored here as a case study. The paper also addresses the ethical dilemmas linked to peer review, predatory publishing, and metric manipulation, advocating for more transparent, pluralistic, and context-sensitive approaches to scientific assessment. The final section reflects on the peculiarities of archaeological data and publication practices, underlining the inadequacy of conventional metrics for evaluating scientific contribution in this field.
References
Academia, 8 Feb 2025. Accessed 8 Feb 2025.
https://www.academia.edu/about
ACZEL B., SZASZI B. & HOLCOMBE A. O. 2021. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review 6: 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2
ALLUM N. 2024. How common is academic plagiarism? - Impact of Social Sciences. Impact of Social Sciences - Maximizing the impact of academic research. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/02/08/how-common-is-academic-plagiarism/.
Altmetric, 20 Feb 2025. Accessed 20 Feb 2025.
AMARAL O.B. 2018. All publishers are predatory - some are bigger than others. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 90: 1643-1647. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201820170959. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201820170959
AMiner, 15 Feb 2025. Accessed 15 Feb 2025.
ANVUR 30 June 2025. Accessed 30 Jun 2025.
https://www.anvur.it/it/ricerca/riviste
arXiv, 20 March 2025. Accessed Mar 2025.
BARTNECK C. 2017. Reviewers’ scores do not predict impact: bibliometric analysis of the proceedings of the human–robot interaction conference. Scientometrics 110: 179-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2176-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2176-y
BEALL J. 2010. “Predatory” open-access scholarly publishers. The Charleston Advisor 11: 10-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.12.1.50
—. 2012. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 489: 179–179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a
—. 2017. What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica 27: 273–78. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029
BEEL J. & GIPP B. 2009. Google Scholar’s Ranking Algorithm : An Introductory Overview., in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI’09), 1: 230-241. Rio de Janeiro (Brazil): International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.
BERGSTROM C. 2007. Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News 68: 314-316. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.68.5.7804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.68.5.7804
BJÖRK B., ROOS A. & LAURI M 2008. Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different open access options. CHAN L. & MORNATI S. (eds.), Open Scholarship: Authority, Community, and Sustainability in the Age of Web 2.0 - Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Electronic Publishing held in Toronto, Canada 25-27 June 2008. Toronto: pp. 178-186.
BLAKE, E. 2014. Social networks and regional identity in Bronze Age Italy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139879262
BREZIS E.S. & BIRUKOU A. 2020. Arbitrariness in the peer review process. Scientometrics 123: 393-411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1
BROOKER R. & ALLUM N. 2024. Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture. Research Integrity and Peer Review 9: 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-024-00151-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-024-00151-x
BURANYI S. 2017. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian, June 27, sec. Science. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science.
Cabell, 18 Mar 2025. Accessed 18 Mar 2025.
CAMPANARIO J.M. 2009. Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics 81: 549-565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2141-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2141-5
CANDAL-PEDREIRA C., ROSS J.S., RUANO-RAVINA A., EGILMAN D.S., FERNÁNDEZ E. & PÉREZ-RÍOS M. 2022. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study. BMJ, e071517. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517
CARDARELLI. Morphological variability and standardisation of vessel shapes in the 2nd and first half of the first millennium BC in continental Italy (Adrias 18). Edipuglia.
CARLSON P.G. 1928. Periodicals and their indexing. Peabody Journal of Education 6: 30-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619562809534850. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01619562809534850
Clarivate History, 10 Feb 2025. Accessed 10 Feb 2025.
https://clarivate.com/academia-government/the-institute-for-scientific-information/history/
Clarivate Editorial Selection Process, 10 Feb 2025. Accessed 10 Feb 2025.
COBEY K.D., LALU M.M., SKIDMORE B., AHMADZAI N., GRUDNIEWICZ A. & MOHER D. 2018. What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Research 7: 1001. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2
COCI, 20 Feb 2025. Accessed 20 Feb 2025.
COPE paper mill, 18 Mar 2025. Accessed 18 Mar 2025.
https://publicationethics.org/topic-discussions/paper-mills
CrossRef, 13 Feb 2025. Accessed 13 Feb 2025.
CrossRef GIT, 13 Feb 2025. Accessed 13 Feb 2025.
https://gitlab.com/crossref/retraction-watch-data
DE GUIO A. 1988. Unità archeostratigrafiche cone unità operazionali: verso le archeologie possibili degli anni ’90. Quaderni di Archeologia Stratigrafica dell’Italia Settentrionale 1: 9-22.
Dean J.W., Flower P.B.S. 1985. Peer review at work. British Medical Journal 29: 1555-1561. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.290.6481.1555
Dimension 13 Feb 2025. Accessed 13 Feb 2025.
DI RENZONI A. 2025. Indexing Science. Archeologia e Calcolatori 36.1: 509-513.
DONY C., RASKINET M., RENAVILLE F., SIMON S. & THIRION P. 2020. How reliable and useful is Cabell’s Blacklist ? A data-driven analysis. LIBER Quarterly 30: 1. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10339
Dora, 10 Mar 2025. Accessed 10 Mar 2025.
EGGHE L. 2006. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 69: 131-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7
FRANGIPANE M. 2023. Scienza e Scienza. Superamento dei confini, Slow Science e libertà della ricerca. Presented at the Inaugurazione Anno Accademico dell’Accademia dei Lincei, Anno 2023-24. https://www.lincei.it/sites/default/files/documenti/20231110_M_Frangipane_A5.pdf.
FUNK R.J. & OWEN-SMITH J. 2017. A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change. Management Science 63: 791-817. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2366
FYFE A., MOXHAM N., MCDOUGALL-WATERS J. & MØRK RØSTVIK C. 2022. A History of Scientific Journals. UCL Press. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10156072/. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781800082328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781800082328
GFTR, 10 March 2025. Accessed 10 March 2025.
https://www.getfulltextresearch.com/
GODLEE F. & JEFFERSON T. (eds.) 1999. Peer review in health sciences (Medical Research). London: BMJ Books.
GREENBERG S.J. & GALLAGHER P. E. 2009. The great contribution: Index Medicus, Index-Catalogue, and IndexCat. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 97: 108-113. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.2.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.2.007
GRUDNIEWICZ A. et al. 2019. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature 576: 210–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
HANSON M.A., BARREIRO P. G., CROSETTO P. & BROCKINGTON D. 2024. The strain on scientific publishing. Quantitative Science Studies 5: 823-843. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327
Harzing's Publish or Perish, 10 March 2025.
https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish
HERBERT R. 2020. Accept Me, Accept Me Not: What Do Journal Acceptance Rates Really Mean? [ICSR Perspectives]. SSRN. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3526365. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3526365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3526365
HICKS D., WOUTERS P., WALTMAN L., DE RIJCKE S. & RAFOLS I. 2015. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520: 429–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
HIRSCH J.E. 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 16569-16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
IBRAHIM H., LIU F., ZAKI Y. & RAHWAN T. 2025. Citation manipulation through citation mills and pre-print servers. Scientific Reports 15: 5480. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-88709-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-88709-7
JINHA A.E. 2010. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing 23: 258-263. https://doi.org/10.1087/20100308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/20100308
KIM K. & CHUNG Y. 2018. Overview of journal metrics. Science Editing 5: 16–20. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.112
KING D.W., TENOPIR C., CHOEMPRAYONG S. & WU L. 2009. Scholarly journal information‐seeking and reading patterns of faculty at five US universities. Learned Publishing 22: 126–44. https://doi.org/10.1087/2009208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/2009208
KULCZYCKI E. et al. 2018. Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics 116: 463–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0
LARIVIÈRE V. & SUGIMOTO C.R. 2019. The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects, in Glänzel W., Moed H.F., Schmoch U. & Thelwall M. (eds.) Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators: 3–24 (Springer Handbooks). Cham: Springer International Publishing. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1
LARIVIÈRE V., HAUSTEIN S. & MONGEON P. 2015. The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE 10: e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
LAWRENCE, A. 2024. Harvard’s Claudine Gay was ousted for ‘plagiarism’. How serious was it really? The Guardian, January 6, sec. Education. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/jan/06/harvard-claudine-gay-plagiarism.
Libkey, 10 Mar 2025. Accessed 10 Mar 2025
LOCK S. 1985. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine (The Rock Carling Fellowship 1985). Philadelphia: ISI Pr.
MABE M. 2003. The growth and number of journals. Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community 16: 191-197. https://doi.org/10.1629/16191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/16191
MARCUS A. & ORANSKY I. 2011. The paper is not sacred. Nature 480: 449–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/480449a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/480449a
MARTÍN-MARTÍN A., THELWALL M., ORDUNA-MALEA E. & DELGADO LÓPEZ-CÓZAR E.. 2021. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics 126: 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
Microsoft Academic, 10 Feb 2025. Accessed 10 Feb 2025.
MOED H.F. 2010. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics 4: 265-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002
MOSKOVKIN V. 2024. Tracing the origins of ‘publish or perish’ - Impact of Social Sciences. Impact of Social Sciences - Maximizing the impact of academic research. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/07/15/tracing-the-origins-of-publish-or-perish/.
NANDAL N., AARUSHI K. & MEENAKSHI D. 2020. Measuring Innovation: Challenges and Best Practices. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology 29: 1275–85.
NEYLON C. 2015. Researchers are not ‘hoodwinked’ victims. All choose to play the publishing game and some can choose to change it. - Impact of Social Sciences. Impact of Social Sciences - Maximizing the impact of academic research. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/09/11/researcher-as-victim-researcher-as-predator/. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59350/sy318-g5z70
NICHOLSON J.M., MORDAUNT M., LOPEZ P., UPPALA A., ROSATI D., RODRIGUES N. P., GRABITZ P. & RIFE S. C. 2021. scite: A smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning. Quantitative Science Studies 2: 882-898. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00146
OH K. 2023. Get Full Text Research (GetFTR): can it be a good tool for researchers? Science Editing 10: 186–89. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.311
OLIJHOEK T. & TENNANT J. 2018. The “problem” of predatory publishing remains a relatively small one and should not be allowed to defame open access - Impact of Social Sciences. Impact of Social Sciences - Maximizing the impact of academic research. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/09/25/the-problem-of-predatory-publishing-remains-a-relatively-small-one-and-should-not-be-allowed-to-defame-open-access/.
OLIVE R., TOWNSEND S. & PHILLIPS M.G. 2023. ‘Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted’: Searching for the value of metrics and altmetrics in sociology of sport journals. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 58: 431-454. https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902221107467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902221107467
OpenAI, 18 Mar 2025. Accessed 18 Mar 2025.
OpenAlex, 13 Feb 2025. Accessed 13 Feb 2025.
ORTEGA J.L. 2022. Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments: How a web journal club is used. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 73: 655–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24568
OZONOFF D. 2024. As the world turns: scientific publishing in the digital era. Environmental Health 23: 24, s12940-024-01063–65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-024-01063-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-024-01063-5
PARK M., LEAHEY E. & FUNK R. J. 2023. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature 613: 138-144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x
Peer Community, 18 Mar 2025. Accessed 18 Mar 2025.
Peer Community Archaeology, 18 Mar 2025. Accessed 18 Mar 2025.
https://archaeo.peercommunityin.org/
PEERE, 14 Mar 2025. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.
PETERS D.P. & CECI S.J. 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183
PHILLIPS M.G. 2020. Sizing up Sport History Journals: Metrics, Sport Humanities, and History. The International Journal of the History of Sport 37: 692-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2020.1796652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2020.1796652
PubPeer, 20 Mar 2025. Accessed 20 Mar 2025.
https://pubpeer.com/static/about
PUPOVAC V. & FANELLI D. 2015. Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics 21: 1331-1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6
RAGONE A., MIRYLENKA K., CASATI F. & MARCHESE M. 2013. On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement. Scientometrics 97: 317-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z
ReserachGate, 8 Feb 2025. Accessed 8 Feb 2025.
https://help.researchgate.net/hc/en-us
Retraction Database, 18 Mar 2025. Accessed 18 Mar 2025.
https://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?
Scopus Metrics, 10 Feb 2025. Accessed 10 Feb 2025.
https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/metrics
Scopus Selection Criteria, 10 Feb 2025. Accessed 10 Feb 2025
https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/content/content-policy-and-selection
SEGLEN P.O. 1997. Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality. Allergy 52: 1050-1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1997.tb00175.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1997.tb00175.x
SEPPELT R., BECKMANN M., VÁCLAVÍK T. & VOLK M. 2018. The Art of Scientific Performance. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33: 805–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.08.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.08.003
Scilit, 15 Feb 2025. Accessed 15 Feb 2025.
Semantic Scholar, 20 Feb 2025. Accessed 20 Feb 2025.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/
SILER K. 2020. There is no black and white definition of predatory publishing - Impact of Social Sciences. Impact of Social Sciences - Maximizing the impact of academic research. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/05/13/there-is-no-black-and-white-definition-of-predatory-publishing/.
SMITH R. 1999. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 318: 4-5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4
SMITH R. 2006. Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99: 178-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414
Sokal affaire, 15 Mar 2025. Accessed 15 Mar 2025.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
SQUAZZONI F., BREZIS E. & MARUŠIĆ A. 2017. Scientometrics of peer review. Scientometrics 113: 501-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4
STRIELKOWSKI W. 2018. Predatory Publishing: What Are the Alternatives to Beall’s List? The American Journal of Medicine 131: 333–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.054
ŠUPAK SMOLČIĆ V. 2013. Salami publication: definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica, 237–41. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.030
SUPAK SMOLCIC V. & BILIC-ZULLE L. 2013. How do we handle self-plagiarism in submitted manuscripts? Biochemia Medica, 150-153. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.019
SWAUGER S. 2017. Open access, power, and privilege: A response to “What I learned from predatory publishing”. College & Research Libraries News 78: 603. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.78.11.603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.78.11.603
TENOPIR C. & KING D.W. 2014. The growth of journals publishing, in COPE B. & Phillips A. (eds.) The Future of the Academic Journal (Second Edition): 159-78. Chandos Publishing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781843347835500069. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634647.159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634647.159
The conceptual penis, 15 Mar 2025. Accessed 15 Mar 2025.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2017.1336861
The Lens, 13 Feb 2025. Accessed 13 Feb 2025.
UKRI, 10 Mar 2025. Accessed 10 Mar 2025.
https://www.ukri.org/publications/review-of-metrics-in-research-assessment-and-management/
WAGER, E., SINGHVI S. & KLEINERT S. 2015. Too much of a good thing? An observational study of prolific authors. PeerJ 3: e1154. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1154
WALLACH E. 2019. Inference from absence: the case of archaeology. Palgrave Communications 5: 94. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0307-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0307-9
WELLISCH H. H. 1983. ‘Index’: the word, its history, meanings and usages. The Indexer 13: 147-51. https://doi.org/10.3828/indexer.1983.13.3.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3828/indexer.1983.13.3.2
WOLFRAM D., WANG P., HEMBREE A. & PARK H. 2020. Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics 125: 1033-1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4
XIE, Y., WANG K. & KONG Y. 2021. Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics 27: 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9
YOUNG N.S., IOANNIDIS J.P.A. & AL-UBAYDLI O. 2008. Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science. PLoS Medicine 5: e201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Associazione Ex Novo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
