The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations

Because both subjective post-publication review and the number of citations are highly error prone and biased measures of merit of scientific papers, journal-based metrics may be a better surrogate.

[1]  M. Walport,et al.  Looking for Landmarks: The Role of Expert Review and Bibliometric Analysis in Evaluating Scientific Publication Outputs , 2009, PloS one.

[2]  A. Neely,et al.  Citation Counts: Are They Good Predictors of Rae Scores? A Bibliometric Analysis of RAE 2001 , 2008 .

[3]  T. Opthof,et al.  Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. , 1997, Cardiovascular research.

[4]  S. Baldi.  Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations : A network-analytic model , 1998 .

[5]  D. Wardle.  Do 'Faculty of 1000' (F1000) ratings of ecological publications serve as reasonable predictors of their future impact? , 2010 .

[6]  P. Seglen,et al.  Education and debate , 1999, The Ethics of Public Health.

[7]  Per Ottar Seglen,et al.  Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact , 1994 .

[8]  J. Koricheva,et al.  What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[9]  Elisabeth Davenport,et al.  Who Cites women? Whom do women cite?: an Exploration of Gender and scholarly citation in Sociology , 1995, J. Documentation.

[10]  Johan Bollen,et al.  A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures , 2009, PloS one.

[11]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  The impact factor's Matthew Effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Gerhard Knothe,et al.  Comparative citation analysis of duplicate or highly related publications , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[13]  Marino Gatto,et al.  Region-based citation bias in science , 1998, Nature.