14 February 2023

---

Scientific publications: in search of objectivity

Massimo Gagliani

---

When I started writing scientific papers, I didn't know the rules of the game. I acted on rudimentary ideas, and I was unaware of a world that, thanks to many colleagues, later revealed itself. Not that I'm a champion, quite the contrary. But I understood that as in all processes that seek absolute truth, the credibility of scientific journals remains an issue of great complexity. While it is my opinion, questions remain unresolved.

The problem is exacerbated by the enormous diffusion, on search engines and scientific databases of certain respectability, of so-called "free consultation" journals. If we type, in the best known digital scientific archive that responds to the name of PubMed, the phrase "dental caries prevention,” we see that the first journal to appear is that of a small country’s medical association. 

The acronyms contribute to multiplying the worlds of scientific publications: Impact factor and H-Index, different acronyms that have different purposes. We often hear it said: our journal is "impacted,” a neologism mixed with English to say that a journal has an Impact Factor (IF), or our journal has articles that are often cited by other articles so that the index value is high. Having IF is a title of merit, being included in the category is too delicate a subject to be commented on in these modest lines.

Among researchers, on the other hand, the H-index is very popular, which underscores the scientific respectability of the individual and his production, the higher the H, the more credible the author. At gala parties, there are those who attend ones only with H-indexed people of their level or show off for the reasons mentioned above. But even in this context, the journals that contribute to the value are those of a specific coterie.

Of course, the selection criteria of the teachers are linked to the indexes, and they represent an element of screening. But the indexes vary so much that, recently, Google-Scholar has appeared… and then Savoy. So, if a disclaimer says: "Currently there is no generally shared and valid mathematical method for the evaluation of research" from Wikipedia ... will it be credible?