Peer review vs bibliometrics: which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?

09/13/2019
by   Giovanni Abramo, et al.
0

In this work, we try to answer the question of which method, peer review vs bibliometrics, better predicts the future overall scholarly impact of scientific publications. We measure the agreement between peer review evaluations of Web of Science indexed publications submitted to the first Italian research assessment exercise and long-term citations of the same publications. We do the same for an early citation-based indicator. We find that the latter shows stronger predictive power, i.e., it more reliably predicts late citations in all the disciplinary areas examined, and for any citation time window starting one year after publication.

READ FULL TEXT

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

research
03/25/2021

Informed peer review for publication assessments: Are improved impact measures worth the hassle?

In this work we ask whether and to what extent applying a predictor of p...
research
09/05/2023

On the peer review reports: It's not the size that matters ... really?

Scientometers and sociologists of science have spilled much ink on the t...
research
05/11/2020

Citations versus expert opinions: Citation analysis of Featured Reviews of the American Mathematical Society

Peer review and citation metrics are two means of gauging the value of s...
research
10/18/2019

Science and Technology Advance through Surprise

Breakthrough discoveries and inventions involve unexpected combinations ...
research
05/17/2021

Does publicity in the science press drive citations? A vindication of peer review

We study how publicity, in the form of highlighting in the science press...
research
12/19/2018

Intermediacy of publications

Citation networks of scientific publications offer fundamental insights ...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset