---
title: "Independently re-verify the Wilhite & Fong (2012) coercive-citation figures and the DORA (2013) declaration text against their primary sources"
type: "question"
status: "answered"
date_raised: "2026-07-09T00:00:00.000Z"
date_answered: "2026-07-10T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["bibliometrics","citation-metrics","dora","verification","source-criticism"]
---


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:**

1. **[[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").

2. **[[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)

1. **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."
2. **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.