CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128scientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic integrity and plagiarismAcademic Publishing and Open Access

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lost in publication: how measurement harms science

Open access
Lawrence, PA·2008·Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics
DOI 10.3354/esep00079
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

ESEP Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics Contact the journal RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections ESEP 8:9-11 (2008) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00079 Lost in publication: how measurement harms science Peter A. Lawrence* Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK, and MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QH, UK *Email: pal@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk ABSTRACT: Measurement of scientific productivity is difficult. The measures used (impact factor of the journal, citations to the paper being measured) are crude. But these measures are now so universally adopted that they determine most things that matter: tenure or unemployment, a postdoctoral grant or none, success or failure. As a result, scientists have been forced to downgrade their primary aim from making discoveries to publishing as many papers as possible—and trying to work them into high impact factor journals. Consequently, scientific behaviour has become distorted and the utility, quality and objectivity of articles has deteriorated. Changes to the way scientists are assessed are urgently needed, and I suggest some here. KEY WORDS: Impact factors · Citations · h-index · Measurement · Scientific careers Full text in pdf format PreviousNextCite this article as: Lawrence PA (2008) Lost in publication: how measurement harms science. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 8:9-11. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00079 Export citation Mail this link - Contents Mailing Lists - RSS Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in ESEP Vol. 8, No. 1. Online publication date: June 03, 2008 Print ISSN: 1863-5415; Online ISSN: ISSN Copyright © 2008 Inter-Research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3354/esep00079

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lawrence, P.
Venue
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics
Publisher
Inter-Research Science Center
Published
2008-06-03
Volume
8
Pages
9-11
ISSN
  • 1611-8014 (ISSN-L)
  • 1863-5415
DOI
10.3354/esep00079
OpenAlex
W1999768848
Cited by
127
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
9.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
impact factor, citation analysis, h-index, scientific careers, academic assessment, publication pressure, research quality, tenure and promotion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review