The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 529-541

  Thelwall, Mike ^a   Fairclough, Ruth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Citation windows; Correlation; Disciplinary differences

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; CORRELATION METHODS;

CITATION ANALYSIS; CITATION COUNTS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; CORRELATION STRENGTH; DISCIPLINARY DIFFERENCES; MULTIPLE DISCIPLINES; QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS; RESEARCH EVALUATION;

MIXING;

EID: 84931271805     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.006     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Abramo G., Cicero T., D'Angelo C.A. National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: The Italian case. Scientometrics 2013, 95(1):311-324.
2. Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L. The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(2):286-291.
3. Burrell Q.L. Hirsch's h-index: A stochastic model. Journal of Informetrics 2007, 1(1):16-25.
4. Didegah F., Thelwall M. Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(4):861-873.
5. Franceschet M., Costantini A. The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(2):275-291.
6. Gottfredson S.D. Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist 1978, 33(10):920-934.
7. Hemphill J.F. Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist 2003, 58(1):78-80.
8. Levitt J., Thelwall M. A combined bibliometric indicator to predict article impact. Information Processing & Management 2011, 47(2):300-308.
9. Li X., Thelwall M. F1000 Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. 17th International conference on science and technology indicators 2012, 1-11. vol. 3.
10. Marx W., Bornmann L. On the causes of subject-specific citation rates in Web of Science. Scientometrics 2015, 102(2):1823-1827.
11. Mohammadi E., Thelwall M. Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics 2013, 97(2):383-395.
12. Nederhof A.J., Van Raan A.F. A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups: A comparison with peer review. Research Policy 1993, 22(4):353-368.
13. Oppenheim C., Summers M.A. Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise, Part VI: Unit of assessment 67 (music). Information Research: An International Electronic Journal 2008, 13(2). 〈http://www.informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper342.html〉.
14. Oppenheim C. The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise Ratings for British library and information science university departments. Journal of Documentation 1995, 51(1):18-27.
15. Oppenheim C. The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy and archaeology. Journal of Documentation 1997, 53(5):477-487.
16. Price D.J.de Solla A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1976, 27(5):292-306.
17. Reale E., Barbara A., Costantini A. Peer review for the evaluation of academic research: Lessons from the Italian experience. Research Evaluation 2007, 16(3):216-228.
18. Rinia E.J., Van Leeuwen T.N., Van Vuren H.G., Van Raan A.F. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy 1998, 27(1):95-107.
19. Singh G., Haddad K.M., Chow C.W. Are articles in "top" management journals necessarily of higher quality?. Journal of Management Inquiry 2007, 16(4):319-331.
20. Starbuck W.H. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science 2005, 16(2):180-200.
21. Thelwall M., Haustein S., Larivière V., Sugimoto C.R. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE 2013, 8(5):e64841.
22. Thelwall M., Wilson P. Distributions for cited articles from individual subjects and years. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):824-839.
23. Thomas P.R., Watkins D.S. Institutional research rankings via bibliometric analysis and direct peer review: A comparative case study with policy implications. Scientometrics 1998, 41(3):335-355.
24. Waltman L., Costas R. F1000 Recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(3):433-445.
25. Wardle D.A. Do 'Faculty of 1000' (F1000) ratings of ecological publications serve as reasonable predictors of their future impact?. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 2010, 3(1):11-15.