The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000 |
| |
| Authors: | Lutz Bornmann Loet Leydesdorff |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Division for Science and Innovation Studies, Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society, Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539 Munich, Germany;2. Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands |
| |
| Abstract: | The data of F1000 and InCites provide us with the unique opportunity to investigate the relationship between peers’ ratings and bibliometric metrics on a broad and comprehensive data set with high-quality ratings. F1000 is a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature. The comparison of metrics with peer evaluation has been widely acknowledged as a way of validating metrics. Based on the seven indicators offered by InCites, we analyzed the validity of raw citation counts (Times Cited, 2nd Generation Citations, and 2nd Generation Citations per Citing Document), normalized indicators (Journal Actual/Expected Citations, Category Actual/Expected Citations, and Percentile in Subject Area), and a journal based indicator (Journal Impact Factor). The data set consists of 125 papers published in 2008 and belonging to the subject category cell biology or immunology. As the results show, Percentile in Subject Area achieves the highest correlation with F1000 ratings; we can assert that for further three other indicators (Times Cited, 2nd Generation Citations, and Category Actual/Expected Citations) the “true” correlation with the ratings reaches at least a medium effect size. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
