Expert Failure: Re-evaluating Research Assessment

PLoS Biology

Volumn 11, Issue 10, 2013, Pages

  Eisen, Jonathan A ^a   MacCallum, Catriona J ^b   Neylon, Cameron ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Public Library of Science ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EDITORIAL; FACTUAL DATABASE; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; POLICY; PREDICTION; PUBLICATION; RELIABILITY; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL MEDIA; UNITED KINGDOM;

HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; SCIENCE;

EID: 84886618872     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001677     Document Type: Editorial

References (27)

1. Eyre-Walker A, Stoletzki N, (2013) The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations. PLOS Biol 11 (10) (): e1001675 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001675.
2. Allen L, Jones C, Dolby K, Lynn D, Walport M, (2009) Looking for Landmarks: The Role of Expert Review and Bibliometric Analysis in Evaluating Scientific Publication Outputs. PLoS ONE 4: e5910 Available: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005910. Accessed 26 December 2011.
3. Hochberg M, (2012) Good Science Depends on Good Peer-Review. Perspectives in Publishing (Blog) Available: https://sites.google.com/site/perspectivesinpublishing/our-mission. Accessed 22 August 2013.
4. Corbyn Z, (18 June 2009) Hefce backs off citations in favour of peer review in REF. The Times Higher Education Available: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/hefce-backs-off-citations-in-favour-of-peer-review-in-ref/407041.article. Accessed 22 August 2013.
5. US National Institutes of Health (page last updated on August 15, 2013) Peer Review Process. Available: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm. Accessed 22 August 2013.
6. Smith R, (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99: 178-182 Available: http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full. Accessed 6 July 2009.
7. The PLOS Medicine Editors (2006) The Impact Factor Game. PLoS Med 3: e291 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291. Accessed 26 June 2013.
8. Rossner M, Epps HV, Hill E, (2007) Show me the data. J Cell Biol 179: 1091-1092 Available: http://jcb.rupress.org/content/179/6/1091. Accessed 8 August 2013.
9. Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E, (2008) Irreproducible Results-A Response to Thomson Scientific. J Gen Physiol 131: 183-184 Available: http://jcb.rupress.org/content/179/6/1091. Accessed 8 August 2013.
10. Brembs B, Button K, Munafò M, (2013) Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Front Hum Neurosci 7: 291 Available: http://www.frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full. Accessed 26 June 2013.
11. Dryad (n.d.) Digital Data Repository. Available: http://datadryad.org/. Accessed 8 August 2013.
12. Allen L, (2013) Providing context to Article-Level Metrics. PLOS Blog Available: http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2013/05/providing-context-to-article-level-metrics/. Accessed 8 May 2013.
13. Neylon C, Wu S, (2009) Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact. PLoS Biol 7: e1000242 Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242. Accessed 19 November 2011.
14. Lin J, Fenner M, (2013) Altmetrics in Evolution: Defining and Redefining the Ontology of Article-Level Metrics. Information Standards Quarterly 25: 20-26 Available: http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2013/v25no2/lin/. Accessed 15 August 2013.
15. ImpactStory (n.d.) Share the full story of your research impact. Available: http://impactstory.org/. Accessed 23 August 2013.
16. Kwok R, (2013) Research impact: Altmetrics make their mark. Nature 500: 491-493 Available: http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7463-491a. Accessed 22 August 2013.
17. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) (n.d.). Available: http://am.ascb.org/dora/. Accessed 26 June 2013.
18. Altmetric (n.d.) Company website. Available: http://www.altmetric.com/. Accessed 26 June 2013.
19. Galligan F, Dyas-Correia S, (2013) Altmetrics: Rethinking the Way We Measure. Ser Rev 39: 56-61 Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S009879131300004X. Accessed 15 August 2013.
20. Piwowar H, (2013) Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature 493: 159-159 Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7431/full/493159a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130110. Accessed 10 January 2013.
21. Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR, (2013) Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services. PLoS ONE 8: e64841 Available: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841. Accessed 15 August 2013.
22. Taylor M, (2013) Exploring the Boundaries: How Altmetrics Can Expand Our Vision of Scholarly Communication and Social Impact. Information Standards Quarterly 25: 27-32 Available: http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2013/v25no2/taylor/. Accessed 15 August 2013.
23. Roemer RC, Borchardt R, (2013) Institutional Altmetrics and Academic Libraries. Information Standards Quarterly 25: 14-19 Available: http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2013/v25no2/roemer/. Accessed 15 August 2013.
24. Konkiel S, Scherer D, (2013) New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics. Bull Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 39: 22-26 Available: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/bult.2013.1720390408. Accessed 15 August 2013.
25. Priem J, (2013) Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature 495: 437-440 Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7442/full/495437a.html. Accessed 21 August 2013.
26. Faculty of 1000 (n.d) F1000Prime. Available: http://f1000.com/prime. Accessed 8 August 2013.
27. Google Scholar (n.d.). Available: http://scholar.google.com. Accessed 9 August 2013.