BaasJFennellC (2019) When peer reviewers go rogue-Estimated prevalence of citation manipulation by reviewers based on the citation patterns of 69,000 reviewers. go.nature.com/2m8nidy
2.
BirksYFairhurstCBloorK, et al. (2014) Use of the h-index to measure the quality of the output of health services researchers. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy19(2): 102–108.
3.
BornmannLBauerJSchlagbergerEM (2017) Characteristics of highly cited researchers 2015 in Germany. Scientometrics. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2248-7
4.
BornmannLBauerJHaunschildR (2015) Distribution of women and men among highly cited scientists. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology66(12): 2715–2716. DOI: 10.1002/asi2383
5.
ChawlaDS (2019) Elsevier probes dodgy citations: hundreds of peer reviewers could be exploitin process. Nature573: 174.
HodgeDRLacasseJR (2011) Evaluating journal quality: is the H-Index a better measure than impact factors?Research on Social Work Practice21(2): 222–230.
OjalaM (2021). The Clarivate-ProQuest wake up call. Information Today: 20–21.
21.
OkagbueHITeixerira da SilvaJA (2020) Correlation between the CiteScore and journal impact factor of top-ranked library and information journals. Scientometrics124: 797–801.
22.
OkagbueHITeixerira da SilvaJAOpanugaAA (2020) Disparities in document indexation in two databases (Scopus and Web of Science) among six subject domains, and the impact on journal-based metrics. Scientometrics. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03704-1
23.
OuimetMBédardPGélineauF (2011) Are the h-index and some of its alternatives discriminatory of epistemological beliefs and methodological preferences of faculty members? The case of social scientists in Quebec. Scientometrics88: 91–106. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0364-3
SalisburyL (2019). Inspec on two platforms: Elsevier’s engineering village and Clarivate analytics’ web of science. The Charleston Advisor. Doi:10.5260/chara.20.3.5
26.
SalisburyL (2020). Scopus CiteScore and Clarivate journal of citation reports. The Charleston Advisor. Doi: 10.5260/chara.21.4.5
27.
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) (2012b). Available at: http://www.ascb.org/dora/
28.
StallerKM (2013) Epistemological Boot Camp: The politics of science and what every qualitative researcher needs to know to survive in the academy. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice12(4): 395–413. DOI: 10.1177/1473325012450483
Teixeira da SilvaJBernèsS (2018) Clarivate analytics: continued Omnia vanitas impact factor culture. Science Engineering Ethics24: 291–297.
31.
Teixeira da SilvaJAl-KhatibA (2019) The Clarivate Analytics acquistion of Publons—an evolution or commodification of peer review?Research Ethics15(3–4): 1–11.
TylkaTLAllevaJMCalogeroRM, et al. (2020) Editors’ response to Clarivate Analytics’ decision to suppress body image from receiving a 2019 Impact Factor. Body Image34: iii–v. DOI: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.08.001
37.
WildeJAFinkelsteinJH (2017a) The role of confidentiality in presidential searches. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 63: 35.
38.
WildeJAFinkelsteinJH (2017b) How well do you know your candidate?The Chronicle of Higher Education, 63:28, A30.
39.
WilsdonJ (2015) The Metric Tide: The Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. London: Sage.