Reviewers have the power to block the publishing of papers they are reviewing if their suggestions to cite their own work or that of their network is not complied with, see: https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/science-and-technology/elsevier-works-with-wageningen-university-to-detect-and-prevent-citation-manipulation. In which cases should citation pushing be tolerated or is it morally not allowed at all? Were you involved in citation pushing yourself as reviewer or as the author of a paper?
Citation pushing is mind control; it limits the creativity of the scientific author, the range of the research work and is morally corrupt. I am not involved in any of such activities and keep away from mind controlling techniques.
Citation pushing is mind control; it limits the creativity of the scientific author, the range of the research work and is morally corrupt. I am not involved in any of such activities and keep away from mind controlling techniques.
This is really annoying and frustrating! I believe this is unethical that needs to stop. I hope that kind of malpractice wont happen with me!
It is unethical.
I was one suggested to check some papers in order to improve my paper, but not forced to cite them.
I find acceptable if reviewer(s) suggest several papers of diferent authors which may help authors to improve and clarify their manuscript.
Since it is impossible to tell what connections a reviewer might have with a journal, and suggested references by reviewers during scientific paper review process are becoming a problem, I think the best thing to do is to advise reviewers against it. Blacklist the stubborn who insist on continuing. It will serve as a deterrent to others.
In my opinion, this practice increases only individual indicators. It makes no sense for a journals to push citations on this journal, since this is auto-citation for journal. In any case, the RSCI (Russian Science Citation Index) does not take such citation into account for journal indicators. I don’t know what are both Scopus and WOS policies for such cases - someday I'll see.
Same time I recieved the "recommendations" of reviewers. Everything is simple here, the natural harmfulness of character does not allow me to agree.
The most common way to increase scientometric indicators is used by some administrators - they figure as co-authors of all the articles made in the scientific subdivision that they lead. 30-50 (sometimes more) articles per year are common for them. Accordingly, all citations to these articles go not only to real authors, but to bosses either. Also, the list of references is often overloaded by references to compatriots of authors. I recently argued with colleagues - the views on this phenomenon are different - from full support, “because they do most of the science”, through “they have unofficial support system of compatriots”, to “they cannot read articles in other languages, therefore they’re limited by “familiar” names". The last opinion belonged to me.
It is unethical and unfaithful act of some reviewers. I once complained bitterly on this act.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers