The editor in chief of Journal A is also on the editorial board of Journal B. Journal B publishes “annual reviews” that purport to describe recent advances in the field, but only do this by discussing and citing their own content. The editor in chief of Journal A now wants to have “annual reviews” in his journal to help increase the impact factor.
In your experience, is this standard practice?
If not, how do we convince the editor-in-chief to change his mind?
The ISI should have mechanisms to stamp this practice out.
The practice is very prevalent, and well known reviews significantly increase the impact factor and this is bad practice.
External editors see it is as standard practice, and journals can ask for citation to make it easier for the reader, but where to draw the line?
The editor in chief of a journal started insisting that authors include references from the journal in their articles. S/he provided examples of acceptance letters from several other journals in the field, which insist that their authors do this, as evidence that it is standard and acceptable practice. The authors do not agree and think this is an unethical attempt to massage the impact factor. But they are struggling to convince the editor-in-chief.
If you agree we should not include the journal references, how do we convince an editor-in-chief who sees his competitors doing it?