学术引用伙伴关系:损害学术诚信的掠夺性做法。

IF 3 2区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Annals of Biomedical Engineering Pub Date : 2024-08-02 DOI:10.1007/s10439-024-03598-7
Louie Giray
{"title":"学术引用伙伴关系:损害学术诚信的掠夺性做法。","authors":"Louie Giray","doi":"10.1007/s10439-024-03598-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recently, academic circles have raised concerns about academic citation partnerships. Many researchers receive emails offering these partnerships, often landing in their spam folders. In this paper, I refer to academic citation partnerships as unethical collaborative arrangements where researchers or authors agree to cite each other's work in their academic publications to enhance their academic profiles, often measured by metrics like the h-index. I discuss the characteristics of such partnerships, individuals, and groups who are commonly involved in academic citation partnerships, and clarify what is not considered an academic citation partnership. I argue that these partnerships are predatory and pose a serious threat to scholarly integrity. Such solicitations blur ethical boundaries by treating citations as commodities, similar to predatory journals and conferences. These partnerships compromise the authenticity of scholarly discourse, artificially inflate perceived impacts, and distort academic evaluations. They undermine the pursuit of knowledge for its intrinsic value and exacerbate inequalities in academia by favoring those who can manipulate citation metrics through resources or networks. Addressing this issue requires a commitment to vigilance and adherence to ethical citation standards, ensuring academic discourse that is intellectually honest and genuinely beneficial to academia.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7986,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Biomedical Engineering","volume":"52 11","pages":"2911 - 2915"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Academic Citation Partnership: A Predatory Practice that Undermines Scholarly Integrity\",\"authors\":\"Louie Giray\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10439-024-03598-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Recently, academic circles have raised concerns about academic citation partnerships. Many researchers receive emails offering these partnerships, often landing in their spam folders. In this paper, I refer to academic citation partnerships as unethical collaborative arrangements where researchers or authors agree to cite each other's work in their academic publications to enhance their academic profiles, often measured by metrics like the h-index. I discuss the characteristics of such partnerships, individuals, and groups who are commonly involved in academic citation partnerships, and clarify what is not considered an academic citation partnership. I argue that these partnerships are predatory and pose a serious threat to scholarly integrity. Such solicitations blur ethical boundaries by treating citations as commodities, similar to predatory journals and conferences. These partnerships compromise the authenticity of scholarly discourse, artificially inflate perceived impacts, and distort academic evaluations. They undermine the pursuit of knowledge for its intrinsic value and exacerbate inequalities in academia by favoring those who can manipulate citation metrics through resources or networks. Addressing this issue requires a commitment to vigilance and adherence to ethical citation standards, ensuring academic discourse that is intellectually honest and genuinely beneficial to academia.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Biomedical Engineering\",\"volume\":\"52 11\",\"pages\":\"2911 - 2915\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Biomedical Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-024-03598-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Biomedical Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-024-03598-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,学术界对学术引用合作提出了担忧。许多研究人员都收到了提供这种合作关系的电子邮件,这些邮件往往会进入他们的垃圾邮件文件夹。在本文中,我将学术引用合作关系称为不道德的合作安排,即研究人员或作者同意在其学术出版物中引用对方的作品,以提高自己的学术形象,通常以 h 指数等指标来衡量。我讨论了此类合作关系的特点、通常参与学术引用合作关系的个人和团体,并澄清了哪些合作关系不被视为学术引用合作关系。我认为这些合作关系具有掠夺性,对学术诚信构成严重威胁。此类合作将引文视为商品,与掠夺性期刊和会议类似,模糊了道德界限。这些合作关系损害了学术话语的真实性,人为夸大了预期影响,扭曲了学术评价。它们损害了人们对知识内在价值的追求,并通过偏袒那些能够通过资源或网络操纵引文指标的人,加剧了学术界的不平等。要解决这一问题,就必须保持警惕,遵守引文道德标准,确保学术讨论在知识上是诚实的,对学术界真正有益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Academic Citation Partnership: A Predatory Practice that Undermines Scholarly Integrity

Recently, academic circles have raised concerns about academic citation partnerships. Many researchers receive emails offering these partnerships, often landing in their spam folders. In this paper, I refer to academic citation partnerships as unethical collaborative arrangements where researchers or authors agree to cite each other's work in their academic publications to enhance their academic profiles, often measured by metrics like the h-index. I discuss the characteristics of such partnerships, individuals, and groups who are commonly involved in academic citation partnerships, and clarify what is not considered an academic citation partnership. I argue that these partnerships are predatory and pose a serious threat to scholarly integrity. Such solicitations blur ethical boundaries by treating citations as commodities, similar to predatory journals and conferences. These partnerships compromise the authenticity of scholarly discourse, artificially inflate perceived impacts, and distort academic evaluations. They undermine the pursuit of knowledge for its intrinsic value and exacerbate inequalities in academia by favoring those who can manipulate citation metrics through resources or networks. Addressing this issue requires a commitment to vigilance and adherence to ethical citation standards, ensuring academic discourse that is intellectually honest and genuinely beneficial to academia.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
Annals of Biomedical Engineering 工程技术-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
15.80%
发文量
212
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Annals of Biomedical Engineering is an official journal of the Biomedical Engineering Society, publishing original articles in the major fields of bioengineering and biomedical engineering. The Annals is an interdisciplinary and international journal with the aim to highlight integrated approaches to the solutions of biological and biomedical problems.
期刊最新文献
A Comparative Analysis of Alpha and Beta Therapy in Prostate Cancer Using a 3D Image-Based Spatiotemporal Model. Statistical Shape Modeling to Determine Poromechanics of the Human Knee Joint. Clinical Validation of Non-invasive Simulation-Based Determination of Vascular Impedance, Wave Intensity, and Hydraulic Work in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Correction: The Effect of Low-Dose CT Protocols on Shoulder Model-Based Tracking accuracy Using Biplane Videoradiography. Thoracic Responses and Injuries of Male Post-Mortem Human Subjects in a Homogeneous Rear-Facing Seat During High-Speed Frontal Impact.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1