A label for peer-reviewed books

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 64, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 428-430

  Verleysen, Frederik T ^a   Engels, Tim C E ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b ANTWERP MARITIME ACADEMY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

book indexing; reviewing

Indexed keywords

BELGIUM; BOOK PUBLISHING; FLANDERS; REVIEWING; UNIVERSITY RESEARCH;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 84872942174     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.22836     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Adams, J., &;, Testa, J., (2011). Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index. In, E. Noyons, P. Ngulube, &;, J. Leta, (Eds.), The 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 13-18). Durban, South Africa: ISSI, Leiden University and University of Zululand.
2. Benda, W.G.G., &;, Engels, T.C.E., (2011). The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science. International Journal of Forecasting, 27, 166-182.
3. Bornmann, L., (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 199-245.
4. Brennan, P., (2012, July 4). Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index. Advancing research, discovery and evaluation. Paper presented at the Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad (VLIR), Brussels, Belgium.
5. Derricourt, R., (2012). Peer review: Fetishes, fallacies and perceptions. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43, 137-147.
6. Engels, T.C.E., Ossenblok, T., &;, Spruyt, E.H.J., (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000-2009. Scientometrics, 93, 373-390.
7. Frølich, N., (2011). Multi-layered accountability. Performance-based funding of universities. Public Administration, 89, 840-859.
8. Ghesquière, P., Van Bendegem, J., -P., Gillis, S., Willems, D., &;, Cornelissen, K., (2011). Het VABB-SHW: eerste versie klaar, nu verfijnen. In, K. Debackere, &;, R. Veugelers, (Eds.), Vlaams Indicatorenboek 2011 (pp. 260-264). Brussels, Belgium: Centre for Research &; Development Monitoring (ECOOM).
9. Giménez-Toledo, E., &;, Román-Román, A., (2009). Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: A review and a study towards a model of evaluation. Research Evaluation, 18, 201-213.
10. Hames, I., (2008). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
11. Hardaway, D.E., &;, Scamell, R.W., (2012). Open knowledge creation: Bringing transparency and inclusiveness to the peer review process. MIS Quarterly, 36, 339-346.
12. Hicks, D., (2004). The four literatures of social science. In, H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, &;, U. Schmoch, (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&;T systems (pp. 473-496). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
13. Hicks, D., (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41, 251-261.
14. Martin, B., Tang, P., Morgan, M., Glänzel, G., Hornborstel, S., Lauer, G., et al. (2010). Towards a bibliometric database for the social sciences and humanities-A European scoping project: A report produced for DFG, ESRC, AHRC, NWO, ANR, and ESF. Brighton, United Kingdom: University of Sussex, Science and Technology Policy Research Unit.
15. Research Information Network. (2010). Peer review: A guide for researchers. London, England: Research Information Network.
16. Sivertsen, G., (2010). A performance indicator based on complete data for the scientific publication output at research institutions. ISSI Newsletter, 6, 22-28.