A validation study of bibliometric indicators: The comparative performance of cum laude doctorates in chemistry

The validity of bibliometric indicators as a monitor of the impact and usefulness of scientific research is examined by comparing the scientific performance of cum laude and non-cum laude degree holders in chemistry (N=237), from five years before their graduation to four years afterwards. Papers of cum laudes were cited more frequently than those of non-cum laudes from three years before graduation until one year after graduation. Two to three years after graduation, the short-term impact per paper was no longer significantly different for both groups. A similar pattern was found with regard to productivity. Little evidence was found in favor of the Ortega hypothesis and the Matthew effect. The results support the concurrent validity of bibliometric indicators with peer review indicators of quality of the research project.