Scientometric indicators: Peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests

Scientometrics

Volumn 85, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 429-441

  Južnič, Primož ^a   Pečlin, Stojan ^b   Žaucer, Matijaž ^a   Mandelj, Tilen ^a   Pušnik, Miro ^a   Demšar, Franci ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^b Slovenian Technology Agency   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

Conflict of interests; Ex post evaluation; Peer review systems; Research project proposals; Scientometric indicators

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956912417     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0230-8     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Aksnes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33-41.
2. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2006). Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review-a citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants. Scientometrics, 68(3), 427-440.
3. Butler, L. (2002). Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications-the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143-155.
4. Coccia, M. (2009). Research performance and bureaucracy within public research labs. Scientometrics, 79(1), 93-107.
5. Cole, S., Cole, J. R., & Simon, G. A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214, 881-886.
6. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. (2006). A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics, 67(2), 263-277.
7. Haeffner-Cavaillon, N., & Graillot-Gak, C. (2009). The use of bibliometric indicators to help peer-review assessment. Archivum Immunologiae et therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 33-38.
8. Larsen, P. O. (2008). The state of the art in publication counting. Scientometrics, 77(2), 235-251.
9. Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Reedijk, J. (1999). Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact. Scientometrics, 46(3), 575-589.
10. Oppenheim, C. (1997). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy and archaeology. Journal of Documentation, 53(5), 477-487.
11. Reinhart, M. (2009). Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity. Scientometrics, 1-21. Accessed November 15, 2009, from http://www. springerlink. com. nukweb. nuk. uni-lj. si/content/h697768254544588/fulltext. pdf.
12. Rigby, J. (2009). Comparing the scientific quality achieved by funding instruments for single grant holders and for collaborative networks within a research system: Some observations. Scientometrics, 78(1), 145-164.
13. Rinia, E. J., van Leewen, T. H. N., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 27(1), 95-107.
14. Rinia, E. J., van Leewen, T. H. N., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research. Research Policy, 30(3), 357-361.
15. Sandström, U., & Hällsten, M. (2008). Persistent nepotism in peer review. Scientometrics, 74(2), 175-189.
16. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factors of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498-502.
17. Slovenian Current Research Information System (SICRIS). (2009). Accessed October 25, 2009, from http://sicris. izum. si/about/cris. aspx?lang=eng.
18. Sorčan, S., Demsar, F., & Valenci, T. (2008). Znanstveno raziskovanje v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Javna Agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije.
19. van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, T. J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2003). The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57(2), 257-280.
20. van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420.
21. van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3), 491-502.
22. Vanclay, J. K. (2009). Bias in the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 78(1), 2-12.
23. Warner, J. (2000). A critical review of the application of citation studies to the Research Assessment Exercises. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 453-460.
24. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131.