How variable are the journal impact measures?

[Paul Colin de Glouceſter]

Dear all:

Aliakbar Haghdoost and Morteza Zare and Azam Bazrafshan, "How variable
are the journal impact measures?",
WWW.EmeraldInsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/OIR-05-2014-0102
contradicts an article (i.e. Mayur Amin and Michael Mabe, "Impact
Factors: Use & Abuse", "Perspectives in Publishing", "Reissued with
minor revisions October 2007",
HTTP://Cdn.Elsevier.com/assets/pdf_file/0014/111425/Perspectives1.pdf
) by one of the most hypocritical scientific publishers of journals of
low qualities.

As for the publisher Emerald Group Publishing Limited: not everyone is
happy with it. On
HTTP://En.Wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emerald_Group_Publishing&diff=621024699&oldid=613264557
it was claimed:
"[. . .]

Republication controversy[edit]

In 2004, Philip Davis of Cornell University found extensive covert
duplication of articles in Emerald/MCB University Press journals,
including at least 409 examples of articles from sixty-seven journals
that were republished without notification that they were previously
published. He found examples of triplicate publishing, as well as
journals that contained no original content, but were filled with
articles submitted to other journals.[5] He published a follow-up
article reporting that the owners of Emerald were simultaneously
acting as authors, editors, and managers of these journals,
duplicating not only the work of others but their own as well.[6]
Emerald undertook its own study and identified 560 republished papers
from 1989 to 2004, 1.1 percent of its total database. Davis argued
that "whatever the number, no amount of premeditated covert article
duplication is acceptable".[7]

[. . .]

References [. . .]

5.Jump up ^ Davis, Philip. "The Ethics of Republishing: A Case Study
of Emerald/MCB University Press Journals". Library Resources &
Technical Services (ALA) 49 (2):
72–78. doi:10.5860/lrts.49n2.72. Retrieved 2008-08-02. 
6.Jump up ^ Davis, Philip. "Article duplication in Emerald/MCB
journals is more extensive than first reported: Possible conflicts of
financial and functional interests are uncovered". Library Resources &
Technical Services (ALA) 49 (3): 148–150. hdl:1813/2574. .
7.Jump up ^ "Online Databases: Duplication Is Ubiquitous". Retrieved
2008-08-02.

[. . .]"

Regards,
Paul Colin de Glouceſter