Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author's track record?

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 62, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 50-60

  Danell, Rickard ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

CITATION DISTRIBUTION; EVALUATION SYSTEMS; RESEARCH GROUPS; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; RESEARCH POLICIES; TRACK RECORD;

INFORMATION USE;

EID: 78650095735     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21454     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Aksnes, D.W., &, Taxt, R.E., (2004). Peer review and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13 (1), 33-41. (Pubitemid 38613439)
2. Allison, P.D., Long, J., &, Krauze, T., (1982). Cumulative advantage and inequality in science. American Sociological Review, 47 (5), 615-625.
3. Benner, M., (2008). Kunskapsnation i kris? Politik, pengar och makt i svensk forskning [Knowledge Nation in crisis: Politics, money and power in the Swedish research]. Stockholm: Nya Doxa.
4. Cole, J.R., &, Cole, S., (1972). The Ortega hypothesis: citation analysis suggests that only a few scientists contribute to scientific progress. Science, 178 (4059), 368-375.
5. Cole, J.R., &, Cole, S., (1973). Social stratification of science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
6. Danell, R., (2001). Internationalization and homogenization: A bibliometric analysis of international management research. Doctoral dissertation, Umeå University.
7. DiPrete, T.A., &, Eirich, G.M., (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 271-297. (Pubitemid 44474122)
8. Garfield, E., &, Welljams-Dorof, A., (1992). Of Nobel class: a citation perspective of high impact research authors. Theoretical Medicine, 13 (2), 117-135.
9. Hao, L., &, Naiman, D.Q., (2007). Quantile regression. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Huber, J.C., (1998). Cumulative advantage and success-breeds-success: The value of time pattern analysis. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 49 (5), 471-476. (Pubitemid 128572067)
11. Koenker, R., &, Bassett, G., (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46 (1), 33-50
12. Luukkonen, T., (1991). Citation indicators and peer review: Their time scale, criteria of evaluation, and biases. Research Evaluation, 1 (1), 21-30.
13. Merton, R.K., (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159 (3810), 56-63.
14. Merton, R.K., (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79 (4), 606-623.
15. Mincer, J., (1974). Schooling, experience, and earnings. New York: Columbia University Press.
16. Moed, H.F., (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
17. 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.
18. Price, D.D., (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27 (5-6), 292-306.
19. Rinia, E.J., van Leeuwen, T.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, 95-107. (Pubitemid 128416436)
20. Simonton, D.K., (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66-89.
21. Simonton, D.K., (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Wagner-Döbler, R., (1995). Where has the cumulative advantage gone? Some observations about the frequency distribution of scientific productivity, of duration of scientific participation, and of speed of publication. Scientometrics, 32 (2), 123-132.
23. Whitley, R., (2007). Changing governance of public science: The consequences of establishing research evaluation systems for knowledge production in different countries and scientific fields. In, R. Whitley, &, J. Gläser, (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht: Springer.