There’s something fishy about citations: We need a method of assessing the support of research if we want to change the ‘publish or perish’ culture | Science 2.0 news |

Current citation biases give us only the narrowest slice of scientific support. Bradley Voytek writes that while BrainSCANr may have flaws, it gives the reader a quick indication of how well-supported an academic argument is and could provide a new way of thinking about citations.

Science has a lot of problems. Or rather, scientometrics has a lot of problems. Scientific careers are built off the publish or perish foundation of citation counts. Journals are ranked by impact factors. There are serious problems with this system, and many ideas have been offered on how to change it but so far little has actually been affected. Many journals, including the PLoS and Frontiers series, are making efforts to bring about change, but they are mostly taking a social tactic: ranking and commenting on articles.I believe these methods are treating the symptom, not the problem. (...) - by Bradley Voytek, LSE blog "Impact of Social Sciences", Oct 17, 2012