We agree with Marcovitch [1], In Pakistan, publications in high impact factor (IF) journals is more important than the research itself. Sole rely on IF is quite shocking for many reasons. One of my colleagues published an article in PLOS One, which was actually fitted into the scope of JPPS, the reason he gave to me was that his supervisor emphasized on publishing in high IF journal. He added, “HEC recognizes only those researchers who produce high IF papers”. In this quest of attaining IF, somehow the real essence and the purpose of the research is carried away. The length of the CV, filled with numerous publications, matters to academicians is becoming more than the quality and applied nature of their articles. [2] This quest leads to the replication, falsification and manipulation of the data as well unnecessary requests for ghost authorships. The Editor of New England Journal of Medicine said after taking retirement that “half of the papers submitted to scientific journals are false. The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” [3]
Japan and China have same criteria of promotion on the basis of publications. Few of my students applied to Malaysian university for Masters. They got the reply, “since your profile is impressive, you are not chosen because you don’t have Q1 publications in your CV”
Health care providers, as well as academicians, go to unreasonable lengths to produce “plethora” of publications. For the promotion of certain positions, IF plays an important role so as the number of papers. Supervisors urged the students to work in an area where there is an opportunity to publish in high IF journals are available and where the chances of a possible number of publications are more. [4]
Being an editor and a reviewer at Elsevier’s, I regularly get an invitation for peer review. I routinely cross check or “cross-reference” the articles of the “unknown” author upon submission. The outcome is shocking because a series of somewhat similar articles come in front. Same author sequence, with the same topic, along with the fairly different title of the manuscript, which we can call “salami slices”. The authors should be advised to submit the whole project (at least the same area) in one article, instead of dividing into small fragments.
What are we doing? Are we manipulating in the name of science? The trend of ghost authorship is at its peak. The colleagues of the same institution put each other’s name on “reciprocal-basis”, precisely, “impact-factorial basis”. This practice is hindering the advancement of clinical practice as well as clinical research. Case studies are less cited and have usually low impact factor, doctors usually go for full-length articles more because only then their research could be cited, more IF and hence more “fame”. [5, 6] This criterion of HEC for the promotion on the basis of IF is somewhat convenient but flawed. HEC has to find a solution for better assessment of academicians, researchers, and clinicians.

References
1. Marcovitch H (2010) Editors, Publishers, Impact Factors, and Reprint Income. PLoS Med 7(10): e1000355. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000355
2. Wager E (2007) Authors, Ghosts, Damned Lies, and Statisticians. PLoS Med 4(1): e34. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040034.
3. Horton R (2015) Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? Lancet 385: 1380.
4. Psooy K (2010) Underserved authorship: too much of a good thing. CUAJ 4:391–2
5. Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K (2006) Author, contributor or just a signer? A quantitative analysis of authorship trends in the field of bioethics. Bioethics. 20:213–20.
6. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Johansen HK, Haahr MT, Altman DG (2007) Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Med 4: e535. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019.