university webdomains are relevant sources, but there are many cases where there is no qualitycontrol not by the scholars or by Google.
Our suggestion is that the use of Google Scholar for bibliometric or evaluation purposes should be done with great
on complete and correct citations, reinforcing qualitycontrol through the whole journal publication chain. However, it appears that the 2010 JCR merely tallies up for each journal, all the citations made to papers published in 2008–2009, irrespective
Peer review is fundamental to science as we know it, but is also a source of delay in getting discoveries communicated to
the world. Researchers have investigated the effectiveness and bias of various forms of peer review, but little attention
has been paid to the relationships among journal reputation, rejection rate, number of submissions received and time from
submission to acceptance. In 22 ecology/interdisciplinary journals for which data could be retrieved, higher impact factor
is positively associated with the number of submissions. However, higher impact factor journals tend to be significantly quicker
in moving from submission to acceptance so that journals which receive more submissions are not those which take longer to
get them through the peer review and revision processes. Rejection rates are remarkably high throughout the journals analyzed,
but tend to increase with increasing impact factor and with number of submissions. Plausible causes and consequences of these
relationships for journals, authors and peer reviewers are discussed.
). The use of one-to-one links to calculate JIFs would indeed require a considerable amount of qualitycontrol by authors, editors, and the database producers.
Since the different approaches for calculating the JIF have their advantages and
the count of articles only), the use of verified one-to-one links only (this would unite authors, editors and Thomson Reuters in qualitycontrol); the adoption of a more appropriate reference interval (the present 2 year interval is too short for many
Authors:Lutz Bornmann, Hanna Herich, Hanna Joos, and Hans-Dieter Daniel
Already in the late 1990s the American Association for the Advancement of Science ( 1998 ) pointed out the importance of peer review and adequate qualitycontrol for electronic publication (Bornmann 2011 ). With
(and trust) the editorial statements of the journals. But why should the same editors who, according to Vanclay ( 2012 ), by all means strive for maximizing their own TRIF not also publicly assure rigorous qualitycontrol in their editorial practice
considered central to the life of scientific community, with at least three missions: validation, diffusion, and archival. The requirement that journal publishing should undergo qualitycontrol processes, including fraud and plagiarism control, is of utmost
related to what the citing author writes and that it has to pass his or her qualitycontrol. Therefore, attractiveness of title is not sufficient for an article to be cited, but it might be enough for it to be downloaded.
The data also showed that