The wisdom of citing scientists

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 65, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1288-1292

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Marx, Werner ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUT FÜR FESTKÖRPERFORSCHUNG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRIC; CITATION ANALYSIS; CITED PAPERS; RESEARCH EVALUATION; WISDOM OF CROWDS;

EID: 84901590544     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23100     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 199-245.
2. Bornmann, L., Bowman, B.F., Bauer, J., Marx, W., Schier, H., & Palzenberger, M. (in press). Bibliometric standards for evaluating research institutes in the natural science. In B. Cronin & C.R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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. doi: 10.1108/00220410810844150.
4. Bornmann, L., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Do scientific advancements lean on the shoulders of giants? A bibliometric investigation of the Ortega hypothesis. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e11344.
5. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2013a). How good is research really? Measuring the citation impact of publications with percentiles increases correct assessments and fair comparisons. EMBO reports, 14(3), 226-230. doi: 10.1038/embor.2013.9.
6. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2013b). The proposal of a broadening of perspective in evaluative bibliometrics by complementing the times cited with a cited reference analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 84-88. doi: DOI 10.1016/j.joi.2012.09.003.
7. Bornmann, L., & Marx,W. (2013c). Proposals of standards for the application of scientometrics in the evaluation of individual researchers working in the natural sciences. Zeitschrift Fur Evaluation, 12(1), 103-127.
8. Cole, S. (1992). Making science. Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. de Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. Lanham, MD, USA: Scarecrow Press.
10. Di Vaio, G., Waldenström, D., & Weisdorf, J. (2012). Citation success: evidence from economic history journal publications. Explorations in Economic History, 49(1), 92-104. doi: 10.1016/j.eeh.2011.10.002.
11. Froghi, S., Ahmed, K., Finch, A., Fitzpatrick, J.M., Khan, M.S., & Dasgupta, P. (2012). Indicators for research performance evaluation: an overview. BJU International, 109(3), 321-324. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011. 10856.x.
12. Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi. Nature, 75, 450-451. doi: Doi 10.1038/ 075450a0.
13. Geim, A.K., & Kim, P. (2008). Carbon wonderland. Scientific American, 298(4), 90-97. (Pubitemid 351665254)
14. Geim, A.K., & Novoselov, K.S. (2007). The rise of graphene. Nature Materials, 6(3), 183-191. doi: 10.1038/Nmat1849. (Pubitemid 46353764)
15. Heinze, T. (2013). Creative accomplishments in science: definition, theoretical considerations, examples from science history, and bibliometric findings. Scientometrics, 95(3), 927-940. doi: DOI 10.1007/s11192-012-0848-9.
16. Herron, D.M. (2012). Is expert peer review obsolete?Amodel suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, 26(8), 2275-2280. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2171-1.
17. Kessler, M.M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10-25.
18. Kreiman, G., & Maunsell, J.H.R. (2011). Nine criteria for a measure of scientific output. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00048.
19. Kuhn, T. (1970). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 1-23). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20. Leydesdorff, L. (1994). The generation of aggregated journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 31(1), 59-84. doi: 10.1007/bf02018102.
21. Martin, B.R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research-some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12(2), 61-90.
22. McCain, K.W. (2011). Eponymy and obliteration by incorporation: the case of the "Nash Equilibrium". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1412-1424. doi: 10.1002/ asi.21536.
23. Merton, R.K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
24. Merton, R.K. (1973). The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25. Muchnik, L., Aral, S., & Taylor, S.J. (2013). Social influence bias: a randomized experiment. Science, 341(6146), 647-651.
26. National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 12-01).
27. Rousseau, R., & Ye, F.Y. (2013). A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58.
28. Small, H.G. (1978). Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8(3), 327-340.
29. Smith, A., & Eysenck, M. (2002). The correlation between RAE ratings and citation counts in psychology. London: Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK.
30. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Random House.
31. van Raan, A.F.J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420. (Pubitemid 126449891)
32. van Raan, A.F.J. (2005). Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133-143. (Pubitemid 40397597)