Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?

被引：31
|
作者：
Abramo, Giovanni [1 ]
D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea [2 ]
Reale, Emanuela [3 ]
机构：
[1] CNR, Inst Syst Anal & Comp Sci IASI CNR, Lab Studies Res Evaluat, Rome, Italy
[2] Univ Roma Tor Vergata, Dept Engn & Management, Rome, Italy
[3] CNR, Res Inst Sustainable Econ Growth IRCRES CNR, Rome, Italy
来源：
SCIENTOMETRICS | 2019年 / 121卷 / 01期
关键词：
Research evaluation; Scientometrics; Publication quality; Scientific advancement; CITATION COUNTS; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; SLEEPING BEAUTIES; JOURNAL METRICS; H-INDEX; INDICATORS; UNIVERSITIES; COEFFICIENT; COMBINATION; AGREEMENT;
D O I：
10.1007/s11192-019-03184-y
中图分类号：
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号：
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要：
In this work, we try to answer the question of which method, peer review versus bibliometrics, better predicts the future overall scholarly impact of scientific publications. We measure the agreement between peer review evaluations of Web of Science indexed publications submitted to the first Italian research assessment exercise and long-term citations of the same publications. We do the same for an early citation-based indicator. We find that the latter shows stronger predictive power, i.e. it more reliably predicts late citations in all the disciplinary areas examined, and for any citation time window starting 1 year after publication.
引用
收藏
页码：537 / 554
页数：18
相关论文
共 48 条
  • [1] Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?
    Giovanni Abramo
    Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo
    Emanuela Reale
    [J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 121 : 537 - 554
  • [2] Transparency versus anonymity: which is better to eliminate bias in peer review?
    Holst, Faye
    Eggleton, Kim
    Harris, Simon
    [J]. INSIGHTS-THE UKSG JOURNAL, 2022, 35
  • [3] Review of Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact
    Hammarfelt, Bjorn
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, 2015, 71 (02) : 416 - 418
  • [4] QUO VADIS PEER REVIEW? THE SCHOLARLY LIFECYCLE FRAMEWORK, CURRENT REVIEW PROCESSES FOR SCHOLARLY AND SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND PUBLICATIONS, OPEN ACCESS, AND ALTERNATIVE PEER REVIEW METHODOLOGIES
    Stracke, Christian M.
    Beyer, Jenny
    [J]. 6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND INNOVATION (ICERI 2013), 2013, : 1702 - 1713
  • [5] GARDNER IMPACT VERSUS IZOD - WHICH IS BETTER FOR PLASTICS
    ABOLINS, V
    [J]. MATERIALS ENGINEERING, 1973, 78 (06): : 52 - 54
  • [6] A New Method and Metric to Evaluate the Peer Review Process of Scholarly Journals
    Etkin, Adam
    [J]. PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY, 2014, 30 (01) : 23 - 38
  • [7] Ultrasonography versus bioelectrical impedance analysis: which predicts muscle strength better?
    Sengul Aycicek, Gozde
    Ozsurekci, Cemile
    Caliskan, Hatice
    Kizilarslanoglu, Muhammet Cemal
    Tuna Dogrul, Rana
    Balci, Cafer
    Unsal, Pelin
    Esme, Mert
    Yavuz, Burcu Balam
    Cankurtaran, Mustafa
    Halil, Meltem Gulhan
    [J]. ACTA CLINICA BELGICA, 2021, 76 (03) : 204 - 208
  • [8] MAFLD Versus NAFLD: Which Better Predicts the Risk of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease?
    Andrew R. Scheinberg
    Binu V. John
    [J]. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2022, 67 : 4606 - 4608
  • [9] MAFLD Versus NAFLD: Which Better Predicts the Risk of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease?
    Scheinberg, Andrew R.
    John, Binu V.
    [J]. DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 2022, 67 (10) : 4606 - 4608
  • [10] Which Percutaneous Tracheostomy Method Is Better? A Systematic Review
    Sanabria, Alvaro
    [J]. RESPIRATORY CARE, 2014, 59 (11) : 1660 - 1670
12345