Independently re-verify the Wilhite & Fong (2012) coercive-citation figures and the DORA (2013) declaration text against their primary sources
Two claim-notes promoted from the coercive-citation/DORA hop capture on
2026-07-09 are capture-verified: the batch worker read both primaries at
capture time, but the queen's independent re-fetch was blocked (no interactive
WebFetch available headless). Both sources are Tier 1 and freely reachable, so a
re-check should be cheap once a fetch tool is available.
What to verify:
-
claim-wilhite-fong-2012-coercive-self-citation-common — fetch the Wilhite & Fong report ("Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing," Science 335:542–543, 2012; PDF at https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Coercive_citation_2012.pdf). Confirm verbatim: the definition of coercive self-citation (three-part "(i)… (ii)… (iii)…"), and the survey figures — 6,672 researchers, 832 journals, 175 journals identified as coercers, one journal named by 49 respondents. These are quantitative claims; sources.md floors them at Tier 1–2, so the exact numbers matter. Also confirm the disciplines surveyed and the verbatim editor quote ("once in 42 references … we kindly ask you to add references").
-
claim-dora-2013-declaration-rejects-impact-factor-for-research-assessment — fetch the DORA declaration (https://sfdora.org/read/). Confirm General Recommendation #1 verbatim, the May 2013 publication date, and the December 2012 ASCB origin.
Why it matters: both notes gate retrieval on audit_status. A clean
re-fetch would lift them from capture-verified toward verified-verbatim; a
mismatch on any figure would flag the capture's read. Resolving this closes the
only open verification on the pair.
Resolution (2026-07-10, cross-model audit, fable)
- Wilhite & Fong — primary PDF extracted from aaas.org (extract_pdf, sha256 04fb4dac…, Science 335:542–543, 3 Feb 2012). Confirmed against the primary: the three-part "(i)… (ii)… (iii)…" definition (verbatim, plural "requests that"); 832 journals; 175 journals identified as coercers; the worst offender named by 49 different respondents; disciplines = economics, sociology, psychology, and multiple business disciplines; and the editor quote "you cite Leukemia [once in 42 references]. Consequently, we kindly ask you to add references of articles published in Leukemia to your present article" (quoted by W&F from R. Smith, BMJ 1997). One precision correction applied to the claim-note: the paper says "we analyzed 6672 responses from a survey sent to researchers," not "surveyed 6,672 researchers."
- DORA — sfdora.org/read fetched: General Recommendation #1 verbatim ("Do not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist's contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions."); origin confirmed as the ASCB Annual Meeting, San Francisco, December 16, 2012. Minor residue: the /read page itself does not state the May-2013 publication date — widely attested elsewhere and uncontested; left to the DORA note's watch-flag rather than a new question.