The Association between Four Citation Metrics and Peer Rankings of Research Influence of Australian Researchers in Six Fields of Public Health

PLoS ONE

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2011, Pages

  Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth ^a,b   Haynes, Abby ^a   Chapman, Simon ^a   Hall, Wayne D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b Institute of Public Goods and Policies   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOLISM; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BIBLIOMETRICS; CITATION ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG DEPENDENCE; EVALUATION RESEARCH; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INJURY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OBESITY; PEER REVIEW; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SKIN CANCER; TOBACCO DEPENDENCE; EVALUATION; PERSONNEL; PUBLIC HEALTH; STANDARD;

NICOTIANA TABACUM;

AUSTRALIA; BIBLIOMETRICS; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 79953756914     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018521     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Donovan C, (2007) Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact. Science and Public Policy 34: 538-542.
2. Bornmann L, Wallon G, Ledin A, (2008) Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data. Research Evaluation 17: 149-156.
3. Martin BR, Irvine J, (1983) Assessing basic research: some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy 12: 61-90.
4. Cicchetti DV, (1991) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 119-186.
5. Langfeldt L, (2001) The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome. Social Studies of Science 31: 820-841.
6. White HD, (1990) Author co-ciation analysis: Overview and defense. In: Borgman CL, editors. Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics Newbury Park Sage pp. 84-106.
7. Moed HF, (2007) The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy 34: 575-583.
8. Bornmann L, Wallon G, Ledin A, (2008) Does the Committee Peer Review Select the Best Applicants for Funding? An Investigation of the Selection Process for Two European Molecular Biology Organization Programmes. Plos One 3.
9. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD, (2008) Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? a comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59: 830-837.
10. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD, (2009) Do We Need the h Index and Its Variants in Addition to Standard Bibliometric Measures? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60: 1286-1289.
11. van Raan AFJ, (2006) Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics 67: 491-502.
12. Schreiber M, (2008) An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-Index, the A-index, and the R-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59: 1513-1522.
13. Derrick GE, Sturk H, Haynes AS, Chapman S, Hall WD, (2010) A cautionary bibliometric tale of two cities. Scientometrics 84: 317-320.
14. Rousseau R, (2008) Reflections on recent developments of the h-index and h-type indices. Proceedings of WIS 2008, Fourth International Conference on Webometrics: Infometrics & Scientometrics & Ninth COLLNET Meeting. Berlin, Germany.
15. Derrick GE, Hall WD, Haynes AS, Chapman S, Redman S, et al. (Manuscript submitted for publication) Challenges in assessing the characteristics of influential public health research. Preprint available athttp://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/6116.
16. Haynes AS, Derrick GE, Redman S, Chapman S, Hall WD, et al. (in press) From 'our world' to the 'real world': exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers. Social Science and Medicine.
17. Hirsch JE, (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102: 16569-16572.
18. Rousseau R, (2006) New developments related to the Hirsch index. Science Focus 1: 23-25.
19. Burrell QL, (2007) Hirsch's h-index: a stochastic model. Journal of Informetrics 1: 16-25.
20. Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, (2010) q(2)-Index: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the Hirsch core. Journal of Informetrics 4: 23-28.
21. Bornmann L, Daniel HD, (2007) Convergent validation of peer review decisions using the h index- Extent of and reasons for type I and type II errors. Journal of Informetrics 1: 204-213.
22. Jin B, Liang L, Rousseau R, Egghe L, (2007) The R- and AR- indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin 52: 855-863.
23. Kosmulski M, (2006) A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally as well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter 2: 4-6.
24. Ravichandra Rao IK, (2007) Distributions of Hirsch-index and G-index: An empirical study. In: Torres-Salinas D, Moed HF, editors. Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Infometrics Madrid, Spain Spanish Research Council (CSIC) pp. 655-658.
25. Schreiber M, (2010) Twenty Hirsch index variants and other indicators giving more or less preference to highly cited papers-. Ann, Phys (Berlin) 522: 536-554.