Netherlands Heart Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 163–165 | Cite as

Inflation of impact factors by journal self-citation in cardiovascular science

  • T. OpthofEmail author
Editorial Comment

Recently, several major cases of fraud in science were exposed in the Netherlands [1, 2, 3]. Unfortunately, the case of Don Poldermans from Erasmus University outlined that this scientific misbehaviour has also affected cardiovascular science, [3] after previous shocking cases in medicine, [4] including the Woo-Suk Hwang debacle on cell stem technology published by Science [5] (see ref. [6] for an extensive analysis of the case). During the editorship of Michiel J. Janse (and my associate editorship) of Cardiovascular Research (1995–2002), there were no retractions, although some investigations were initiated. However, there were five retractions over the subsequent 10 years under the co-editorship of Michael H. Piper and David Garcia-Dorado [7].

An increase in retractions suggests that fraud in science is a problem of increasing importance. Of course, editors and reviewers alike have neither been educated to act as data police officers, nor is it their primary goal to search for fraud...



I am grateful for the critical comments of Ruben Coronel, Michiel J. Janse, Loet Leydesdorff and Arthur Wilde.


After acceptance of this Editorial Comment, I noticed that JACC also published such ‘Highlights of the year’ in the years 2005–2011 and recently in 2013, each time primarily referring to papers published during the previous year. The total number of references in these ‘Highlights’ gradually increased from 107 in 2005 to 292 in 2012 (see above). The 2013 ‘version’ had 261 references.



Conflict of interests

None declared.


  1. 1.
    Anonymous. statistically_highly_unlikely_social_psychologist_dirk-smeesters_resigns-91449.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Farthing MJG. Research misconduct: diagnosis, treatment and prevention. Br J Surg. 2000;87:1605–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kennedy D. Editorial retraction. Science. 2006;311:335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van der Heyden MAG. Derks van de Ven T, Opthof T. Fraud in science: the stem cell seduction. Implications for the peer review process. Neth Heart J. 2009;17:25–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Web of Science, Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia (data extraction at 14 December 2012).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Solla Price D. The Analysis of Square Matrices of Scientometric Transactions. Scientometrics. 1981;3:55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noma E. An Improved Method for Analyzing Square Scientometric Transaction Matrices. Scientometrics. 1982;4:297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilhite AW, Fong EA. Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science. 2012;335:542–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Editors. Circulation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Editor’s picks. Most read articles on arrhythmia devices (defibrillation, pacing, pacemakers, heart arrest, and resuscitation). Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2012;5:e69–77.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van der Wall EE, The NHJ. 2012 in retrospect: which articles are cited most? Neth Heart J. 2012;19:481–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Opthof T, Wilde AAM. Bibliometrical data in clinical cardiology revisited. The case of 37 Dutch professors. Neth Heart J. 2011;19:246–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical and Experimental CardiologyHeart Failure Research Center, Academic Medical CenterAmsterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical PhysiologyUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations