Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 659-667

  Abramo, Giovanni ^a,b   Cicero, Tindaro ^b   D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea ^b  

^a CNR   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Citation window; Italy; Peer review; Research evaluation; Scientific impact

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054017225     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A. Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics 2011, 10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7.
2. Adams J. Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact. Scientometrics 2005, 63(3):567-581.
3. Aksnes D.W., Taxt R.E. Peers reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at Norwegian University. Research Evaluation 2004, 13(1):33-41.
4. Althouse B.M., West I.D., Bergstrom C.T., Bergstrom T. Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 60(1):27-34.
5. Bornmann L. Scientific peer review. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge 2008, IV(2):23-38.
6. Bormann L., Daniel H.D. Citation speed as a measure to predict the attention an article receives: An investigation of the validity of editorial decisions at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4:83-88.
7. Egghe L., Rousseau R. Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science 1990, Elsevier Science Publishers.
8. Franceschet M., Costantini A. The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(2):275-291.
9. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 1972, 178:471-479.
10. Glänzel W., Schlemmer B., Thijs B. Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon. Scientometrics 2003, 58(3):571-586.
11. Glänzel W. Seven myths in bibliometrics. About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. Proceedings of WIS Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Ninth COLLNET Meeting 2008, Kretschmer, F. Havemann (Eds.).
12. Horrobin D.F. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990, 263:1438-1441.
13. MacRoberts M.H., MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of American Society of Information Science 1989, 40:342-349.
14. Moed H.F. Citation analysis in research evaluation 2005, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
15. Moxham H., Anderson J. Peer review. A view from the inside. Science and Technology Policy 1992, 7-15.
16. Oppenheim C. The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy and archaeology. Journal of Documentation 1997, 53:477-487.
17. Reale E., Barbara A., Costantini A. Peer review for the evaluation of the academic research: The Italian experience. Research Evaluation 2006, 16(3):216-228.
18. Rinia E.J., Van Leeuwen Th.N., Van Vuren H.G., Van Raan A.F.J. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria, evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy 1998, 27:95-107.
19. Rousseau R. Citation distribution of pure mathematics journals. Informetrics, Belgium: Diepenbeek 1988, 87/88:249-262.
20. Stringer M.J., Sales-Pardo M., Nunes Amaral L.A. Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information. PLoS ONE 2008, 3(2):e1683. 10.1371/journal.pone.0001683.
21. Van Dalen H.P., Henkens K.E. Signals in science - on the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics 2005, 64(2):209-233.