Correlations between bibliometrics and peer evaluation for all disciplines: The evaluation of Brazilian scientists

Scientometrics

Volumn 96, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 395-410

  Wainer, Jacques ^a   Vieira, Paula ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Bibliometric measures; Brazil; Peer evaluation; Scientist evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880132576     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-0969-9     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Aksnes, D., & Taxt, R. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33-41.
2. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273-289.
3. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2005). Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work?. Scientometrics, 65(3), 391-392.
4. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. (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(5), 830-837.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. London: Routledge Academic.
6. Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6(2), 161-180.
7. Franceschet M., & Costantini, A. (2011). The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 275-291.
8. Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta- analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486-504.
9. Hicks, D. (2011). Systemic data infrastructure for innovation policy. In: Science and innovation policy, 2011 Atlanta Conference on, IEEE, (pp 1-8).
10. Hirsch, J. (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(16), 569-16, 572.
11. Iglesias, J., & Pecharroman, C. (2007). Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 73(3), 303-320.
12. Korevaar, J. (1996). Validation of bibliometric indicators in the field of mathematics. Scientometrics, 37(1), 117-130.
13. Li, J., Sanderson, M., Willett, P., Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2010). Ranking of library and information science researchers: Comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgments. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 554-563.
14. Merton, R. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
15. Oliveira, E., Colosimo, E., Martelli, D., Quirino, I., Oliveira, M., Lima, L., Simoes e Silva, A., & Martelli-Junior, H. (2012). Comparison of Brazilian researchers in clinical medicine: Are criteria for ranking well-adjusted?. Scientometrics, 90(2), 429-443.
16. Patterson, M., & Harris, S. (2009). The relationship between reviewers' quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal physics in medicine and biology from 2003-2005. Scientometrics, 80(2), 343-349.
17. Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(45), 17, 268.
18. Reale, E., Barbara, A., & Costantini, A. (2007). Peer review for the evaluation of academic research: Lessons from the Italian experience. Research Evaluation, 16(3), 216-228.
19. Rinia, E., van Leeuwen, T., van Vuren, H., & van Raan, A. (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.
20. van Raan, A. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3), 491-502.
21. Wainer, J., Eckmann, M., Goldenstein, S., & Rocha, A. (2012). Differences in productivity and impact across the different computer science subareas. Technical Report IC-12-08, Institute of Computing, University of Campinas, http://www. ic. unicamp. br/~reltech/2012/12-08. pdf Accessed December 2012.
22. Waltman, L., van Eck, N., van Leeuwen, T., Visser, M., & van Raan, A. (2011). On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Scientometrics, 88(3), 1017-1022.
23. Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2005). Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics, 63(2), 373-401.