Organisatie - 14 september 2017

Regrettable conduct but not citation fraud

tekst:
Roelof Kleis
3

The Wageningen soil scientist accused of citation fraud has been absolved. She did not violate scientific integrity, but she did demonstrate ‘regrettable scientific conduct’, according to the Scientific Integrity Committee (CWI) at Wageningen University & Research.

© Shutterstock

The committee, which has spent the last six months investigating the case, concluded that ‘the researcher acted in a regrettable manner and showed insufficient awareness in the past period of the seriousness of the situation’. The regrettable conduct refers to the fact that the soil scientist thinks it is normal for editors and reviewers to call on authors to cite their own articles. This form of manipulation gives scientists a higher citation score and scientific journals a higher impact factor.

The Wageningen soil scientist had previously been accused of being part of a citation cartel of international soil scientists centred on the Spanish professor Artemi Cerdà. He has been proven to have manipulated citations. The Wageningen scientist, a protégée of Cerdà, was an editor of several journals in which the Spaniard was also involved. They worked and published a lot together.

CWI is not sure whether the Wageningen researcher was aware of Cerdà’s activities or whether she is a victim of his manipulations. At any rate, the accusation of organized citation pushing cannot be proved. On the other hand, she must have noticed the ‘help’ coming from Cerdà and she was definitely guilty of citation pushing in one instance. This does not constitute a violation of scientific integrity, however, as the code of conduct for scientists does not have any rules on reviewing and editorial activities.

It is not clear what consequences the CWI ruling will have for the soil scientist. ‘This is not a formal reprimand,’ says Executive Board spokesman Simon Vink. ‘It will be added to the personnel file and then it’s up to her managers — the professor and the science group director.’ The Executive Board has urged the journals in question to remove the false citations. But it is not clear whether they will do that.

Vink says the board was shocked to discover how easy it is to commit citation fraud. ‘And it’s not really possible as an organization to pinpoint this. We don’t have a good view of such reviewing processes.’ That is why the board has urged other parties to take measures (see box).

BOX

Measures to combat citation fraud
Following the case involving the soil scientist, WUR Executive Board will be asking the publishers of scientific journals to reconsider their reviewing procedures. They should take more measures to prevent citation pushing, the practice whereby editors and reviewers (anonymously) goad authors into citing their own articles. WUR has also asked the Dutch Association of Universities to take action. In response, the association has decided to include rules in the scientific code of conduct for researchers who act as reviewers or editors for scientific journals.

Re:acties 3

  • it

    They actually continue to practice the same. We do not change the habits. The paper:

    'The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services' by Keesstra

    published in january 2018, so a month ago, has already 23 citations, most of them from the cartel with Cerda.
    This is a disgusting behaviour.
    It seems that the journal Science of the Total Environment is their new base for their cartel.

    Reageer
  • William Wallace

    Name and shame the journals that were manipulated by this mud scientist mafia, so we can actively uncite the rubbish they dumped in there.

    Reageer
  • Pedro

    SO, Saskia keesstra is clean ? This is really the biggest joke of the year. She is a 'victim' of Cerda ? She was the main member of the citation cartel.

    The victims are the people who did not benefit from the citation cartel, i.e. all the other honest scientists. This is a serious ethical problem, and the board seems fine with it. So let's do it so that we can compete with the cheaters!

    Where is the report of the board anyway to conclude that Saskia keesstra is not guilty ? We would like to see what they did, it's too easy to say that Cerda is responsible of everything. She had 70 citation per year in 2014 and more than 1100 per year for 2017, how is it possible to simply be a victim ??!!

    Reageer

Re:ageer