Publons Peer Evaluation Metrics are not Reliable Measures of Quality or Impact

被引:1
|
作者
Goldstein, Scott [1 ]
机构
[1] Appalachian State Univ Lib, Boone, NC 28608 USA
来源
关键词
D O I
10.18438/eblip29579
中图分类号
G25 [图书馆学、图书馆事业]; G35 [情报学、情报工作];
学科分类号
1205 ; 120501 ;
摘要
Objective - To analyze the relationship between scholars' qualitative opinion of publications using Publons metrics and bibliometric and altmetric impact measures. Design - Comparative, quantitative data set analysis. Setting - Maximally exhaustive set of research articles retrievable from Publons. Subjects - 45,819 articles retrieved from Publons in January 2018. Methods - Author extracted article data from Publons and joined them (using the DOI) with data from three altmetric providers: Altmetric.com, PlumX, and Crossref Event Data. When providers gave discrepant results for the same metric, the maximum value was used. Publons data are described, and correlations are calculated between Publons metrics and altmetric and bibliometric indicators. Main Results - In terms of coverage, Publons is biased in favour of life sciences and subject areas associated with health and medical sciences. Open access publishers are also over-represented. Articles reviewed in Publons overwhelmingly have one or two pre-publication reviews and only one post-publication review. Furthermore, the metrics of significance and quality (rated on a 1 to 10 scale) are almost identically distributed, suggesting that users may not distinguish between them. Pearson correlations between Publons metrics and bibliometric and altmetric indicators are very weak and not significant. Conclusion - The biases in Publons coverage with respect to discipline and publisher support earlier research and suggest that the willingness to publish one's reviews differs according to research area. Publons metrics are problematic as research quality indicators. Most publications have only a single post-publication review, and the absence of any significant disparity between the scores of significance and quality suggest the constructs are being conflated when in fact they should be measuring different things. The correlation analysis indicates that peer evaluation in Publons is not a measure of a work's quality and impact.
引用
收藏
页码:153 / 155
页数:3
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact
    Luis Ortega, Jose
    [J]. ASLIB JOURNAL OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, 2019, 71 (01) : 124 - 136
  • [2] Ranking metrics and evaluation measures
    Yu, Jie
    Amores, Jaume
    Sebe, Nicu
    Tian, Qi
    [J]. ADVANCES IN IMAGING AND ELECTRON PHYSICS, VOL 144, 2006, 144 : 291 - 316
  • [3] Lack of impact of metrics feedback on provider compliance with anesthesia care quality measures
    Hertling, Arthur
    Tom, Simon
    Kendale, Samir
    Cuff, Germaine
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2021, 133 (3S_SUPPL): : 1575 - 1576
  • [4] Peer review of quality of care: methods and metrics
    Bion, Julian
    Alderman, Joseph Edward
    [J]. BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY, 2023, 32 (01) : 1 - 5
  • [5] Peer Review Metrics and their influence on the Journal Impact
    Gul, Sumeer
    Ahmad, Aasif
    Shueb, Sheikh
    Nisa, Nahida Tun
    Nisar, Salma
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, 2023, 49 (06) : 1431 - 1437
  • [6] An Experimental Evaluation of Peer-To-Peer Reliable Multicast Protocols
    Benincasa, Giacomo
    Rossi, Andrea
    Suri, Niranjan
    Tortonesi, Mauro
    Stefanelli, Cesare
    [J]. 2011 - MILCOM 2011 MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE, 2011, : 1015 - 1022
  • [7] Evaluation for citation metrics and peer reviewer acknowledgments
    Green, Bart N.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CHIROPRACTIC EDUCATION, 2016, 30 (02): : 85 - 86
  • [8] EVALUATION OF NETWORK MEASURES AS COMPLEXITY METRICS
    Singh, Gurpreet
    Balaji, Srinath
    Shah, Jami J.
    Corman, David
    Howard, Ron
    Mattikalli, Raju
    Stuart, D.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASME INTERNATIONAL DESIGN ENGINEERING TECHNICAL CONFERENCES AND COMPUTERS AND INFORMATION IN ENGINEERING CONFERENCE 2012, VOL 2, PTS A AND B, 2012, : 1065 - +
  • [9] QUALITY METRICS IN ALFS: FRAMEWORK, MEASURES, AND IMPLEMENTATION
    Shippee, Tetyana
    Bucy, Taylor
    Akosionu, Odichinma
    Skarphol, Tricia
    [J]. INNOVATION IN AGING, 2022, 6 : 281 - 281
  • [10] Measures and Metrics of ML Data and Models to Assure Reliable and Safe Systems
    Werner, Benjamin D.
    Schumeg, Benjamin J.
    Vigil, Jon
    Hall, Shane N.
    Thengvall, Benjamin G.
    Petty, Mikel D.
    [J]. 2024 ANNUAL RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY SYMPOSIUM, RAMS, 2024,