Recommended Free Tools
A 2013 report by Chemistry World described allegations by Belgrade-based Centre for Evaluation in Science and Education (CEON) that two journals published in Bosnia and Herzegovina manipulated citations. The claims concerned HealthMed and Technics Technologies Education Management (TTEM), published by DRUNPP. They remain allegations reported at the time—not a current investigation or a final finding established by the sources available here.
What did the 2013 report allege?
Mićo Tatalović’s Chemistry World article, published on 31 January 2013, summarized a CEON study authored by its then-head, Pero Šipka. It said the study accused HealthMed and TTEM of manipulating citations in ways that affected their impact factors. The article reported that both journals were listed by Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports at that time; this is historical information, not evidence of their present indexing status.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
As Chemistry World conveyed the study’s claims, the journals’ impact factors came entirely from a combination of journal self-citations, citations exchanged between the two journals, and citations by Serbian authors. The report further said CEON considered many of those citations unjustifiable or fabricated. The underlying case-specific data are not provided in the article, so its account does not allow readers to reproduce or independently verify the analysis.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How was citation manipulation said to work?
A journal’s impact factor is influenced by citations to its recent articles. In the alleged pattern, citations within a journal, between the two journals, and from authors publishing in Serbia were said to have raised the journals’ citation counts. The central accusation was not simply that the journals cited themselves or one another, but that some citations were unjustified or fabricated and formed part of deliberate manipulation.
#1 Best Overall
- Keep track of everything from attendance to test scores
- Spiral bound
- Measures 8-1/2" x 11"
That distinction matters. Self-citation and reciprocal citation can be legitimate; researchers in the same field may reasonably cite related work. A high rate or dense exchange can warrant scrutiny, but by itself it does not establish coordination, intent, or misconduct.
What response and consequences were reported?
Šipka recommended that indexing services remove the journals and that Serbian research authorities stop recognizing papers published in them and act against authors he said were heavily involved. Chemistry World reported that the journals’ editors did not respond to its requests for comment. That absence of comment is not an admission.
On the council’s response, the article quoted Šipka as saying: “In Serbia, the National Council for Science and Technology Development reacted promptly and suspended papers published in the two journals.” This is Šipka’s account as reported in 2013; it does not establish current policy or show that the broader recommendations were implemented. The article said the consequences for authors remained undetermined.
Šipka also urged institutions employing the editors to consider “measures against their staff,” whom he described as “obviously most responsible for both masterminding technologies of manipulation.” This was his attributed view, not an independently established finding about responsibility.
Rank #3
- 8 1/2" x 11" book for lesson plans and grades
- Combines W101 and R6080
- W101-Lesson Plan Book for 7 classes/days horizontally across the top
- R6080-Teacher Record Book for 6-8 weeks. 36 Student names. Large blocks.
The report included a separate assessment from Semir Vranic, identified as a fellow at the Clinical Centre of the University of Sarajevo. Vranic said there was “certainly fabrication of data,” and criticized other aspects of journal quality. Those comments are his opinion in the 2013 article; they should not be treated as a verified assessment of the case or of journals in Bosnia generally.
What can later citation-network research establish?
A 2021 peer-reviewed study by Sadamori Kojaku, Giacomo Livan, and Naoki Masuda developed CIDRE, a method for detecting anomalous groups of journals in citation networks. It is methodological context, not a follow-up investigation of HealthMed or TTEM. The authors compared observed citation patterns with a baseline that accounts for journal size and research-community structure, rather than treating every dense or reciprocal citation pattern as suspicious.
The study analyzed yearly journal citation networks for 2000–2019 using a Microsoft Academic Graph snapshot released on 30 January 2020, covering 48,821 journals. It reported detecting 11 of 22 groups of journals suspended by JCR in the year of suspension or earlier, under its stated overlap criterion. Those results describe the method’s general performance, not evidence about the Bosnian journals.
The authors were explicit about the limits of inference: “In the absence of a ground truth validation—such as the one provided by comparisons against the list of journals banned in JCR—we shall refrain from identifying these groups as citation cartel candidates, and it is clear that, in some cases, the anomalous citation patterns are not a result of citation cartels.” A statistical anomaly can identify a pattern for investigation; it cannot, on its own, prove a cartel or intent.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is known about the case today?
The 2014 commentary in Biomolecules and Biomedicine described the allegations as involving two journals published in Bosnia and Herzegovina where Serbian researchers regularly published. It provides regional context, not independent verification of CEON’s evidence.
The sources cited here do not establish HealthMed’s or TTEM’s current publication or indexing status, whether DRUNPP’s ownership or editorial arrangements have changed, whether a later independent analysis confirmed or refuted CEON’s findings, or whether formal findings against named authors followed. The 2013 report therefore supports a precise conclusion: serious allegations were made and reported, but the available record does not establish a final adjudication or the journals’ current status.
Quick Recap
Sources
- Chemistry World, 31 January 2013: contemporaneous report of CEON’s allegations, recommendations, and attributed responses.
- Scientific Reports (2021): peer-reviewed study of anomalous citation groups; its scope does not include a retrospective assessment of this case.
- Biomolecules and Biomedicine: regional commentary, not independent confirmation of the allegations.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
