F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations ludo

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 65, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 433-445

  Waltman, Ludo ^a   Costas, Rodrigo ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SERVICES;

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BIOMEDICAL LITERATURE; COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISONS; DATA-SOURCE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH EVALUATION; WEB OF SCIENCE;

PUBLISHING;

EID: 84900543794     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23040     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. 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(6), e5910.
2. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 199-245.
3. Bornmann, L., &Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80.
4. Bornmann, L., &Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286-291.
5. Butler, L. (2007). Assessing university research: A plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 565-574.
6. Efron, B., &Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman &Hall.
7. Gottfredson, S.D. (1978). Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist, 33(10), 920-934.
8. Lawani, S.M., &Bayer, A.E. (1983). Validity of citation criteria for assessing the influence of scientific publications: New evidence with peer assessment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(1), 59-66.
9. Li, X., &Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 541-551).
10. Medical Research Council. (2009). MRC e-Val 2009. Retrieved from http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Achievementsimpact/Outputsoutcomes/MRCe-Val2009/ Publications/index.htm~P110-9319
11. Moed, H.F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Berlin: Springer.
12. Moed, H.F. (2007). The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 575-583.
13. Mohammadi, E., &Thelwall, M. (in press). Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics.
14. Nederhof, A.J. (1988). The validity and reliability of evaluation of scholarly performance. In A.F.J. van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology (pp. 193-228). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
15. Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The J-shaped distribution of citedness. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 383-395.
16. Nicolaisen, J. (2007). Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 609-641.
17. Priem, J., &Hemminger, B.H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7).
18. Priem, J., Piwowar, H.A., &Hemminger, B.M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv:1203.4745.
19. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., &Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
20. Schubert, A., Zsindely, S., Telcs, A., &Braun, T. (1984). Quantitativeanalysis of a visible tip of the peer review iceberg: Book reviews in chemistry. Scientometrics, 6(6), 433-443.
21. Seglen, P.O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314, 498-502.
22. Van Eck, N.J.,Waltman, L., Van Raan, A.F.J., Klautz, R.J.M., &Peul,W.C. (2013). Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e62395.
23. Virgo, J.A. (1977). A statistical procedure for evaluating the importance of scientific papers. The Library Quarterly, 47(4), 415-430.
24. Waltman, L., &Van Eck, N.J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378-2392.
25. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N.J., Van Leeuwen, T.N., Visser, M.S., &Van Raan, A.F.J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37-47.
26. Wardle, D.A. (2010). Do "Faculty of 1000" (F1000) ratings of ecological publications serve as reasonable predictors of their future impact? Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 11-15.
27. Wets, K., Weedon, D., Velterop, J. (2003). Post-publication filtering and evaluation: Faculty of 1000. Learned Publishing, 16(4), 249-258.
28. Wouters, P., &Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. SURFfoundation. Retrieved from http://www.surf.nl/en/publicaties/pages/users- narcissism-control.aspx