The Pressure to Publish More and the Scope of Predatory Publishing Activities

TL;DR: This article overviews unethical publishing practices in connection with the pressure to publish more, and several measures are proposed to tackle the issue of predatory publishing.

Abstract: This article overviews unethical publishing practices in connection with the pressure to publish more. Both open-access and subscription publishing models can be abused by ‘predatory’ authors, editors, and publishing outlets. Relevant examples of ‘prolific’ scholars are viewed through the prism of the violation of ethical authorship in established journals and indiscriminately boosting publication records elsewhere. The instances of ethical transgressions by brokering editorial agencies and agents, operating predominantly in non-Anglophone countries, are presented to raise awareness of predatory activities. The scheme of predatory publishing activities is presented, and several measures are proposed to tackle the issue of predatory publishing. The awareness campaigns by professional societies, consultations with information facilitators, implementation of the criteria of best target journals, and crediting of scholars with use of integrative citation metrics, such as the h-index, are believed to make a difference.

Full text

© 2016 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0)
which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
pISSN 1011-8934
eISSN 1598-6357
e Pressure to Publish More and the Scope of Predatory
Publishing Activities
This article overviews unethical publishing practices in connection with the pressure to
publish more. Both open-access and subscription publishing models can be abused by
‘predatory’ authors, editors, and publishing outlets. Relevant examples of ‘prolific’ scholars
are viewed through the prism of the violation of ethical authorship in established journals
and indiscriminately boosting publication records elsewhere. The instances of ethical
transgressions by brokering editorial agencies and agents, operating predominantly in non-
Anglophone countries, are presented to raise awareness of predatory activities. The scheme
of predatory publishing activities is presented, and several measures are proposed to tackle
the issue of predatory publishing. The awareness campaigns by professional societies,
consultations with information facilitators, implementation of the criteria of best target
journals, and crediting of scholars with use of integrative citation metrics, such as the
h-index, are believed to make a difference.
Keywords: Predatory Publishing; Open Access; Authorship; Professional Societies; Citation
Metrics; Best Target Journals
Armen Yuri Gasparyan,
1
Bekaidar Nurmashev,
2
Alexander A. Voronov,
3
Alexey N. Gerasimov,
4
Anna M. Koroleva,
5
and George D. Kitas
1,6
1
Departments of Rheumatology and Research and
Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust
(Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham,
UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands,
UK;
2
South Kazakhstan State Pharmaceutical
Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan;
3
Department of
Marketing and Trade Deals, Kuban State University,
Krasnodar, Russian Federation;
4
Department of
Statistics and Econometrics, Stavropol State
Agrarian University, Stavropol, Russian Federation;
5
Department of Economics and Organization of
Production, Industrial University of Tyumen, Tyumen,
Russian Federation;
6
Arthritis Research UK
Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester,
Manchester, UK
Received: 19 August 2016
Accepted: 13 September 2016
Address for Correspondence:
Armen Yuri Gasparyan, MD
Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development,
Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the
University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley
DY1 2HQ, West Midlands, UK
E-mail: a.gasparyan@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.12.1874
•
J Korean Med Sci 2016; 31: 1874-1878
WHY SCHOLARS PUBLISH ARTICLES?
ere are many reasons for publishing journal articles in our times. Scholarly articles
are primarily required for career advancement and international recognition that can
be reected in values of several citation metrics (1,2). At the time of launching the rst
scientic journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665, the main rea-
son of publishing scholarly works (letters) was to distribute information among profes-
sionals, encourage formal discussion, and archive all related accounts for future gener-
ations. Such an idealistic approach to the scholarly communication at the time of lim-
ited opportunities for publishing and absence of citation metrics has facilitated pre-
serving scientic wisdom, inuenced scientic and technological progress, and left an
enduring legacy of professional journal publishing. All top academic journals are now
embracing that approach and serving platforms for scholarly communication. Most
authors and readers take that for granted.
With the expanding opportunities for communication and a changing publishing
landscape, the value of well-preserved journal articles is paradoxically much less ap-
preciated than it was centuries ago. In fact, evidence suggests that the vast majority of
abstracts (65%-79%) presented at congresses of professional societies never transform
into full articles and do not inuence the scientic discourse (3-5). Although biblio-
graphic databases of Elsevier and omson Reuters are expanding coverage of confer-
ence proceedings and abstracts fulfilling certain quality criteria, such items are not
counted as complete reports and are not recommended for citing (6). Given numerous
deciencies in reporting, even systematic reviews presented in the form of abstracts
cannot be considered as reliable evidence-based accounts (7). Low rates of publishing
full articles, which are based on congress abstracts, can be partly explained by the au-
thors’ indiscretion and their academic institutions’ ‘soft’ policies towards publication
activity. The uncertainties in distinguishing the quality and importance of abstracts
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Editing, Writing & Publishing

Gasparyan AY, et al.
•
Pressure to Publish and Predatory Publishing
http://jkms.org
1875
https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.12.1874
and full articles form a ground for flawed crediting schemes,
acknowledging any type of publication. In such an environment,
numerous ‘predatory’ congresses have emerged, providing am-
ple opportunities for publishing abstracts for a fee without any
selective approach and no chance of indexing by prestigious
bibliographic databases (8).
ARTIFICIALLY BOOSTING PUBLICATION
RECORDS
Unfortunately, academic advancement in most countries is
currently dependent on the number rather than quality of schol-
arly works (9). In an attempt to boost publication records and
get academic degrees and titles, some authors embark on ei-
ther listing their names in solid research articles without fulll-
ing the authorship criteria or producing ‘wasteful,’ redundant
items, just filling space in journals without any scientific pur-
pose. A recent MEDLINE-based analysis revealed a highly ques-
tionable practice of publishing more than 1 research paper per
10 working days by some world-renowned authors (10). Such a
prolic publication activity results in hundreds, if not thousands
of articles recorded by scholars who often hold inuential aca-
demic posts, head journal editorial boards, and abundantly
publish in their own journals that serve as hubs for evidence
accumulation.
Another instance of articially boosting publication records
was recently discussed on Jerey Beall’s blog (11). He analyzed
the case of an author with hundreds of editorials and redundant
letters which were indexed by MEDLINE. e author pointed
to a number of issues related to a wide variety of academic dis-
ciplines in the form of short (2-3 paragraphs) notes. None of
these notes contained any rational or new point, being merely a
recapitulation of already published facts. e same author also
gained ‘fame’ for actively contributing to predatory journals by
submitting his notes and heading editorial boards.
SCOPE OF PREDATORY PUBLISHING ACTIVITIES
e digitization of publishing creates almost unlimited oppor-
tunities for streamlining the distribution of scholarly ideas,
comments, research data and overviews through the journals
of established and start-up open-access publishers (12). Publi-
cation activity of any individual in any corner of the world can
be now realized without the amount of eort required 2-3 de-
cades ago. e emerged ‘cascading’ schemes allow manuscripts,
rejected by established and high-impact journals, to nd their
home in gold open-access periodicals of the same or other pub-
lishers with lower rank and/or lower submission rates. In a des-
perate attempt to attract manuscripts and make a prot, many
start-up open-access publishers launch a large series of jour-
nals with ambitious titles, such as “International…,” “World…,”
“European,” “American…,” “Science…,” which mimic those of
established ones but add no value, receive no approval of pres-
tigious professional societies, and only damage reputation of
contributing authors and editorial board members. Both the
cascading schemes and new open-access journals of unprofes-
sional publishers often undermine the importance of basic eth-
ical norms, peer review, and research reporting validation. e
speed of publication in journals that circumvent ethical barriers
is largely dependent on open-access charges, which is viewed
by J. Beall as the main factor corrupting the publishing market
(13).
On his blog (https://scholarlyoa.com/), J. Beall blacklisted
English predatory journals exploiting gold open access and phi-
shing articles of inexperienced authors from poor research en-
vironments, who are concerned with the quantity rather than
the quality of their publications. ese authors, their research
facilitators and grant funders are to be blamed for prioritizing
any ‘international’ English publication regardless of the index-
ing and archiving prospects.
Some predatory publishers have managed to get indexing by
Web of Science and Scopus, and attracted numerous experi-
enced authors willing to pay for indexed and widely visible arti-
cles. e subsequent dramatic increase in the volumes of these
journals, however, was not followed by proportionate expand-
ing of the reviewers’ bank. e most relevant example is the Life
Science Journal that lost its indexing status in 2014 after years of
overly ‘productive’ publishing. Likewise, the Asian Pacic Jour-
nal of Cancer Prevention with its latest impact factor of 2.515
and 1,385 annual publication record (Journal Citation Reports
®
,
omson Reuters, 2014) lost Web of Science coverage and re-
lated impact factor in 2015.
e number of predatory publishers and standalone journals
blacklisted by J. Beall in 2016 stands at 923 (only 18 in 2011) and
882 (126 in 2013), respectively (14). Few prolic publishers with
hundreds of ethical journals, such as Dove Medical Press (New
Zealand) and Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MD-
PI, China), which were initially categorized as predatory by J.
Beall, were delisted from his blog after providing compelling
evidence of adhering to the established ethical standards. How-
ever, the list still includes Frontiers and Kowsar Publishing with
numerous indexed journals that claim to adhere to the recom-
mendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Predatory journals have diverse professional and geographi-
cal coverage. Multidisciplinary, research-intensive and rapidly
developing disciplines with prospects of producing numerous
articles are viewed as ‘cash cows’ by predatory publishers. e
emerging scientic powers and low-income countries prioritiz-
ing international publications and incentivizing their authors
for any English article are primarily targeted (15,16).
An analysis of the development trend of a large sample of
predatory open-access journals, which were listed on J. Beall’s

Gasparyan AY, et al.
•
Pressure to Publish and Predatory Publishing
1876
http://jkms.org
https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.12.1874
blog, revealed a rapid increase of the volume of articles from
53,000 in 2010 to 420,000 in 2014 (17). Interestingly, engineer-
ing, biomedicine and social sciences were the most active dis-
ciplines in terms of contributing predatory articles. Of 262 iden-
tified corresponding authors, 34.7% represented India, 16.4%
were from Africa, and 9.2% from North America.
In a desperate attempt to add English publications to their
CVs, non-native English-speaking authors may plagiarize or
commit other forms of misconduct (18,19). The instances of
translating Chinese publications and republishing them in Eng-
lish indexed journals have come to the fore recently (20). Bro-
kering editorial agencies and individual agents, exploiting the
pressure on unscrupulous Chinese researchers and academics
to publish more, sell authorship and manipulate with author
names in the by-lines of manuscripts accepted by prestigious
journals (21). Brokering agencies are also actively operating in
other countries with rapidly increasing volumes of publications,
and particularly in Iran and Russia, where articles in high-ranked
periodicals are oered for a fee (22,23).
Predatory publishing practices can take dierent forms and
involve non-English open-access and subscription journals as
well (24). Non-English journals escape blacklisting because
most Anglophone experts do not read and do not analyze con-
tents of these journals. In contrast to English predatory journals,
non-English ones rarely solicit articles by generating spam invi-
tations, and often publish submissions from ‘friendly’ organiza-
tions and individual agents. Single issues of such non-English
predatory journals may accommodate many articles from ‘frien-
dly’ institutions with ‘reviewer comments’ written and present-
ed by authors themselves, with decoratively posting submis-
sion and acceptance dates in the article footnotes.
TACKLING THE ISSUE OF PREDATORY
PUBLISHING
Predatory publishing activities are here to stay as long as there
is a pressure to publish more. Research and academic institu-
tions crediting their faculty and fellows for prolific activities
perpetuate the vicious circle of generating poor and inconclu-
sive research data, redundant reviews, and pointless letters (25).
Scientic authors’ unawareness of what constitutes predatory
activity and haphazard targeting of scholarly journals contrib-
ute to the flourishing of poor quality, useless, and unethical
journals. The scope of predatory activities is diverse, and all
those involved in scientific communications can be dragged
into such activities (Fig. 1).
Fortunately, several professional societies have launched a
campaign against questionable open-access publishers and
journals by referring to J. Beall’s list and increasing awareness of
unethical publishers among new scholars (26,27). In 2015, glob-
al associations of editors and publishers, such as the COPE and
the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA),
Fig. 1. Scope of predatory publishing activities.
Fig. 1. Scope of predatory publishing activities
Predatory publishing activities
 Lack of transparency over the services and fees
 Pricelists dependent on ranks of target journals
 Corrupt links to journals
 Violation of authorship and other ethical norms
Brokering editorial agencies and agents
Unethical (co)authors
Producing redundant,
sloppy, or otherwise
unethical articles for
boosting publication
records
Conferences
Charging fees for poorly
checked and
(non)indexed abstracts
Hijacked journals’
websites
Fee-based services for
directing submissions to
bogus copies of
established journals
Bogus ‘impact factor’
agencies
Issuing misleading
metrics without counting
citations or using
incomplete citation data
Standalone open
access and
subscription journals
Open access and
subscription journal
and book publishers
 Compromised peer review
 Inadequate editorial policies
 Lack of transparency over the publication charges
 Poor/irrelevant indexing and archiving
Open access and subscription
journal and book publishers
Standalone open access and
subscription journals
Compromised peer review
Inadequate editorial policies
Lack of transparency over the publication charges
Poor/irrelevant indexing and archiving
Lack of transparency over the services and fees
Pricelists dependent on ranks of target journals
Corrupt links to journals
Violation of authorship and other ethical norms
Unethical (co)authors Conferences
Hijacked journals’
websites
Bogus ‘impact factor’
agencies
Producing redundant, sloppy,
or otherwise unethical
articles for boosting
publication records
Charging fees for poorly
checked and (non)indexed
abstracts
Fee-based services for
directing submissions to
bogus copies of established
journals
Predatory publishing activities
Issuing misleading metrics
without counting citations or
using incomplete citation data
Brokering editorial agencies and agents

Gasparyan AY, et al.
•
Pressure to Publish and Predatory Publishing
http://jkms.org
1877
https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.12.1874
have formed a coalition and initiated the “ink. Check. Sub-
mit” (TCS) campaign to help researchers assess the credentials
of publishers and choose trusted journals for their research
(http://thinkchecksubmit.org/). The TCS campaign offers a
simple checklist of questions to help authors, and particularly
those from non-Anglophone countries, identify reputable jour-
nals, which are endorsed by peers, have transparent editorial
policies, relevant indexing and adhere to the ethical guidance
of the global editorial associations. Additionally, a group of soft-
ware specialists, researchers and publishers developed a digital
platform to match English manuscript titles and abstracts with
relevant and trusted journals (https://www.journalguide.com/).
Finally, experts from various professional backgrounds have
publicized statements on the ‘pollution’ of the scientic evidence
accumulation (28,29) and proposed criteria of best target jour-
nals, which may sideline outlets with unethical publishing mo-
dels (30,31).
e role of librarians or information facilitators with a broad-
er look at publishers and the quality of their journals is becom-
ing critical in our times (32). Their knowledge and expertise
may help other stakeholders of scientific communications to
choose a limited number of best references for reading, submit-
ting manuscripts and citing, regardless of their access modes
(33).
Research administrators who implement standards for re-
search evaluation based on a combination of scientometric in-
dicators can play their role in publicizing good research in peri-
odicals with wide readership, high citation rates and endorse-
ments from peers and minimize chances of articially boosting
publication records. At present, among numerous indicators
for evaluation of an individual’s research productivity and im-
pact, the h-index with its integrative approach to the number of
articles and their citations in Scopus and Web of Science stands
out as the most appropriate tool. at index has been used glo-
bally for more than a decade and proved to be a reliable indica-
tor for authors with a long-standing career (34,35). e choice
of a bibliographic database for recording the h-index depends
on the indexing status of journals in a given discipline, pecu-
liarities of research environments and regional priorities, with
Scopus viewed as the most comprehensive platform for authors
from Europe and non-Anglophone countries (36). Apparently,
the h-index has its inherent limitations that should be taken into
account for evaluating performance of early career researchers
and those with a large number of multi-authored and self-cited
articles (37,38). As showcased in an analysis of the Nobel laure-
ates’ research performance, the h-index cannot be a proxy met-
ric for assessing the innovativeness and scientic quality of arti-
cles (39). Additionally, the journal h-index, among other cita-
tion metrics, can help identify best journals with established
traditions, wide visibility, and high citation rates and prevent
submissions to predatory outlets that lose in the citation com-
petition.
Prestigious abstract and citation databases, such as Scopus
and Web of Science, still index a number of open-access and
subscription journals that are not transparent over the peer re-
view and publication charges. Indexers of these prestigious da-
tabases, who are concerned with the ‘pollution’ of their plat-
forms, regularly consult J.Beall’s list, take into account their us-
ers’ complaints, and delist journals embarking on various trans-
gressions. For that reason, authors and research evaluators alike
are advised to visit the updated list of indexed journals prior to
publishing and crediting (40).
Many professional societies across the world publish period-
icals in English and other languages that serve interests of rele-
vant communities regardless of the indexing status and citation
counts. Prestige of these periodicals is dependent on the use of
published articles, which can be assessed by downloads, shar-
ing on social media, and positive points received from the sur-
veyed membership. Incentivizing professional society mem-
bers for contributing to their journals can be an additional de-
fensive measure against predatory journals (41).
Eorts aimed at improving skills for scholarly writing in Eng-
lish and local languages, systematically searching through bib-
liographic databases, and raising awareness of predatory activi-
ties are urgently needed in countries, where brokering editorial
agencies and agents have streamlined ows of most manuscripts
to predatory outlets and hindered science growth (15). Strength-
ening the positions of regional and local professional societies
and encouraging their members to publish in local journals can
be also viewed as a step away from predatory media.
DISCLOSURE
e authors have no potential conicts of interest to disclose.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
Conception: Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Kitas GD. Design of
the Figure: Voronov AA, Gerasimov AN. Support with reference
selection: Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. Writing 1st draft: Gasparyan
AY. Revision: Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Voronov AA, Gera-
simov AN, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. Final approval and respon-
sibility for the whole article: all authors.
ORCID
Armen Yuri Gasparyan http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8749-6018
Alexander A. Voronov http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8505-7345
Alexey N. Gerasimov http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1244-4755
Anna M. Koroleva http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3893-6392
George D. Kitas http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0828-6176

Gasparyan AY, et al.
•
Pressure to Publish and Predatory Publishing
1878
http://jkms.org
https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.12.1874
REFERENCES
1. Rallison SP. What are Journals for?
Ann R Coll Surg Engl
2015; 97: 89-91.
2. Wester K. Why Publish?
World Neurosurg
2016; 91: 616-7.
3. Olive A, Cifuentes I, Roca J. e fate of abstracts: without publication, sci-
ence is dead.
J Rheumatol
2004; 31: 1007.
4. Yilmaz S, Kalyoncu U, Cinar M, Karadag O, Koca SS, Simsek I, Erdem H,
Pay S, Dinc A. Features and publication rates of scientic abstracts pre-
sented at a rheumatology congress--EULAR 2008.
Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013)
2013; 71: 124-7.
5. Allart E, Beaucamp F, Tireau V, evenon A. Fate of abstracts presented
at the 2008 European Congress of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine.
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med
2015; 51: 469-75.
6. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Gerasimov AN, Kostyukova
EI, Kitas GD. Preserving the integrity of citations and references by all
stakeholders of science communication.
J Korean Med Sci
2015; 30:
1545-52.
7. Hopewell S, Boutron I, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Deciencies in the publica-
tion and reporting of the results of systematic reviews presented at scien-
tic medical conferences.
J Clin Epidemiol
2015; 68: 1488-95.
8. Bowman JD. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraud-
ulent conferences.
Am J Pharm Educ
2014; 78: 176.
9. Abdollahi M, Gasparyan AY, Saeidnia S. e urge to publish more and its
consequences.
Daru
2014; 22: 53.
10. Wager E, Singhvi S, Kleinert S. Too much of a good thing? An observa-
tional study of prolic authors.
PeerJ
2015; 3: e1154.
11. Scholarly Open Access.ai researcher has hundreds of publications. Ex-
cept … [Internet]. Available at https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/06/16/thai-
researcher-has-hundreds-of-publications-except/ [accessed on 16 Au-
gust 2016].
12. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Open access: changing global sci-
ence publishing.
Croat Med J
2013; 54: 403-6.
13. Beall J. Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory jour-
nals.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl
2016; 98: 77-9.
14. Scholarly Open Access. Beall’s list of predatory publishers 2016 [Internet].
Available at https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predato-
ry-publishers-2016/ [accessed on 16 August 2016].
15. Yessirkepov M, Nurmashev B, Anartayeva M. A Scopus-based analysis of
publication activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: positive trends,
concerns, and possible solutions.
J Korean Med Sci
2015; 30: 1915-9.
16. Clark J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals.
BMJ
2015;
350: h210.
17. Shen C, Björk BC. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article
volumes and market characteristics.
BMC Med
2015; 13: 230.
18. Jansen PA, Forget PM. Predatory publishers and plagiarism prevention.
Science
2012; 336: 1380.
19. Rezaeian M. Disadvantages of publishing biomedical research articles in
English for non-native speakers of English.
Epidemiol Health
2015; 37:
e2015021.
20. Carafoli E. Scientic misconduct: the dark side of science.
Rend Lincei Sci
Fis Nat
2015; 26: 369-82.
21. Hvistendahl M. China’s publication bazaar.
Science
2013; 342: 1035-9.
22. Ataie-Ashtiani B. Curbing Iran’s academic misconduct.
Science
2016; 351:
1273-4.
23. Gershman M, Kuznetsova T. e future of Russian science through the
prism of public policy.
Foresight
2016; 18: 320-39.
24. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Diyanova SN, Kitas GD. Publishing ethics
and predatory practices: a dilemma for all stakeholders of science com-
munication.
J Korean Med Sci
2015; 30: 1010-6.
25. Sarewitz D. e pressure to publish pushes down quality.
Nature
2016;
533: 147.
26. Bradley-Springer L. Predatory publishing and you.
J Assoc Nurses AIDS
Care
2015; 26: 219-21.
27. Kearney MH; INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative. Pred-
atory publishing: what authors need to know.
Res Nurs Health
2015; 38:
1-3.
28. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Gorin SV, Koroleva AM, Kitas
GD. Statement on publication ethics for editors and publishers.
J Korean
Med Sci
2016; 31: 1351-4.
29. Christopher MM, Young KM. Awareness of “predatory” open-access
journals among prospective veterinary and medical authors attending
scientic writing workshops.
Front Vet Sci
2015; 2: 22.
30. Gasparyan AY. Choosing the target journal: do authors need a compre-
hensive approach?
J Korean Med Sci
2013; 28: 1117-9.
31. Sharman A. Where to publish.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl
2015; 97: 329-32.
32. Walden RR. For medical literature expertise, ask a librarian.
Acad Med
2016; 91: 1040.
33. Berger M, Cirasella J. Beyond Beall’s list: better understanding predatory
publishers.
Coll Res Libr News
2015; 76: 132-5.
34. Bornmann L, Marx W, Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Diversity, value and limi-
tations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics.
Rheumatol
Int
2012; 32: 1861-7.
35. Walker B, Alavifard S, Roberts S, Lanes A, Ramsay T, Boet S. Inter-rater re-
liability of h-index scores calculated by Web of Science and Scopus for
clinical epidemiology scientists.
Health Info Libr J
2016; 33: 140-9.
36. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Multidisciplinary bibliographic da-
tabases.
J Korean Med Sci
2013; 28: 1270-5.
37. Habibzadeh F, Yadollahie M. Read the articles; don’t count them.
Arch
Iran Med
2009; 12: 302-3.
38. Gaster N, Gaster M. A critical assessment of the h-index.
BioEssays
2012;
34: 830-2.
39. Patel VM, Ashraan H, Almoudaris A, Makanjuola J, Bucciarelli-Ducci C,
Darzi A, Athanasiou T. Measuring academic performance for healthcare
researchers with the H index: which search tool should be used?
Med
Princ Pract
2013; 22: 178-83.
40. Scopus.com. Titles indexed in Scopus: check before you publish [Inter-
net]. Available at https://blog.scopus.com/posts/titles-indexed-in-sco-
pus-check-before-you-publish [accessed on 16 August 2016].
41. Publish or perish.
Nature
2010; 467: 252.