The percentage of reviews in research output: A simple measure of research esteem

Research Evaluation

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 25-37

  Lewison, Grant ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Evaluametrics Ltd   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 64549121122     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820209X410406     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Adler, R, J Ewing and P Taylor 2008. Citation Statistics. International Mathematical Union in co-operation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. See: , last accessed 21 January 2009.
2. Anderson, J, N Williams, D Seemungal, F Narin and D Olivastro 1996. Human genetic technology: exploring the links between science and innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 8(2), 135-156.
3. Basu, A and R Aggarwal 2001. International collaboration in science in India and its impact on institutional performance. Scientometrics, 52(3), 379-394.
4. Braun, T, W Glänzel and A Schubert 1989. Some data on the distribution of journal publication types in the Science Citation Index database. Scientometrics, 15(5-6), 325-330.
5. Brown, P, S M Zavestoski, S McCormick and J Mandelbaum 2001. Print media coverage of environmental causation of breast cancer. Sociology of Health and Illness, 3(6), 747-775.
6. Callaham, M, R L Wears and E Weber 2002. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2847-2850.
7. Collins, P and S Wyatt 1988. Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy, 17, 65-74.
8. Cozzens, S 1989. What do citations count? The rhetorical-first model. Scientometrics, 15, 437-447.
9. Cronin, B and D Shaw 1999. Citation, funding acknowledgement and author nationality relationships in four information science journals. Journal of Documentation, 55(4), 402-408.
10. De Bruin, R H and H F Moed 1993. Delimitation of scientific subfields using cognitive words from corporate addresses in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 40, 423-436.
11. Gingras, Y, V Larivière, B Macaluso and J P Robitaille 2008. The effects of aging to scientists on their publication and citation patterns. Available at: , last accessed 21 January 2009.
12. Glänzel, W and H F Moed 2002. Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171-193.
13. Grant, J, R Cottrell, F Cluzeau and G Fawcett 2000. Evaluating 'payback' on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study. British Medical Journal, 320, 1107-1111.
14. Hanney, S, I Frame, J Grant, M Buxton, T Young and G Lewison 2005. Using categorisations of citations when assessing the outcomes from health research. Scientometrics, 65(3), 357-379.
15. Hicks, D, H Tomizawa, Y Saitoh and S Kobayashi 2004. Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States. Research Evaluation, 13(2), 78-86.
16. King, D A 2004. The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430, 311-316.
17. Lewison, G 1996. The definition of biomedical research subfields with title keywords and application to the analysis of research outputs. Research Evaluation, 6, 25-36.
18. Lewison, G 1998a. Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: funding sources and impact. Gut, 43(2), 288-293.
19. Lewison, G 1998b. New bibliometric methods for the evaluation of medical schools. Scientometrics, 41(1-2), 5-16.
20. Lewison, G 2002. Researchers' and users' perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals. Scientometrics, 53(2), 229-240.
21. Lewison, G and M Devey 1999. Bibliometric methods for the evaluation of arthritis research. Rheumatology, 38, 13-20.
22. Lewison, G and G Paraje 2004. The classification of biomedical journals by research level. Scientometrics, 60(2), 145-157.
23. Lewison, G and R Sullivan 2008. The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines. British Journal of Cancer, 98(12), 1944-1950.
24. Lewison, G, R Cottrell and D Dixon 1999. Bibliometric indicators to assist the peer review process in grant decisions. Research Evaluation, 8(1), 47-52.
25. Lewison, G, I Rippon, A de Francisco and S Lipworth 2004. Outputs and expenditures on health research in eight disease areas using a bibliometric approach. Research Evaluation, 13(3), 181-188. [See p. 183 for a discussion of the problem of homonyms.]
26. Lewison, G, I Rippon and S Wooding 2005. Tracking knowledge diffusion through citations. Research Evaluation, 14(1), 5-14.
27. Lewison, G, G Thornicroft, G Szmukler and M Tansella 2007. Fair assessment of the merits of psychiatric research. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 314-318.
28. Lewison G, S Tootell, P Roe and R Sullivan 2008. How do the media report cancer research? A study of the UK's BBC website. British Journal of Cancer, 99(4), 569-576.
29. Man, J P, J G Weinkauf, M Tsang and D D Sin 2004. Why do some countries publish more than others? An international comparison of research funding, English proficiency and publication output in highly ranked general medical journals. European Journal of Epidemiology, 19(8), 811 -817.
30. Martin, B 1996. The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36, 343-362.
31. NSB, National Science Board (2006) Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, volume 2. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 06-01 A). Also available online at: , last accessed 21 January 2009. See Appendix, table 5-62.
32. Nederhof, A J 2008. Policy impact of bibliometric rankings of research performance of departments and individuals in economics. Scientometrics, 74(1), 163-174.
33. Nederhof, A J and A F J van Raan 1993. A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups - a comparison with peerreview. Research Policy, 22(4), 353-368.
34. Phillips, D P, E J Kanter, B Bednarczyk and P L Tastad 1991. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine, 325, 1180-1183.
35. Rinia, E J, T N van Leeuwen, H G van Vuren and A F J van Raan 2001. Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research. Research Policy, 30(3), 357-361.
36. Schmoch, U and T Schubert 2008. Are international copublications an indicator for quality of scientific research? Scientometrics, 74(3), 361-377.
37. Sønderstrup-Andersen, E M and H H K Sønderstrup-Andersen 2008. An investigation into diabetes researchers' perceptions of the Journal Impact Factor - reconsidering evaluating research. Scientometrics, 76(2), 391-406.
38. Sigogneau, A 2000. An analysis of document types published in journals related to physics: proceeding papers recorded in the Science Citation Index database. Scientometrics, 47(3), 589-604.
39. Van Leeuwen, T N, M S Visser, H F Moed, T J Nederhof and A F J van Raan 2003. The Holy Grail of science policy: exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57(2), 257-280.
40. Webster, B M 2005. International presence and impact of the UK biomedical research, 1989-2000. Aslib Proceedings, 57(1), 22-47.