Scientific peer review

Bornmann, Lutz

doi:10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112

Cited by 405 publications

(351 citation statements)

References 198 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

329

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…High-quality research is the result of research and its assessment by peers. Since many years, bibliometric (citation-based) indicators have been developed as a valuable alternative to peer review (Bornmann, 2011). "Although such indices (e.g., journal impact factors) do not capture the multidimensional complexities of article quality … they are widely used proxies that do not suffer the unreliability that plagues more subjective quality assessments" (Haslam & Laham, 2010, p. 217 Using the data of F1000 (FFa) we have the unique opportunity to investigate the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric metrics on a broad and comprehensive data set with high-quality ratings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the strength of the association varies across disciplines, and it also depends on the discipline internal coverage of the used bibliometric database" (Franceschet & Costantini, 2011, p. 284). An overview of papers that report a close relationship between peer ratings or editorial decisions, respectively, at single journals and bibliometric metrics investigated can be found in Bornmann (2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000

Bornmann

Leydesdorff

2013

Journal of Informetrics

Self Cite

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000

Bornmann

Leydesdorff

2013

Journal of Informetrics

Self Cite

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, it has several drawbacks such as, for example, poor inter-subjectivity and low reliability through dependency on the panel composition (Bornmann, 2011;Riordan et al, 2011; Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2011). Scientific and political measures can however be taken to reduce these inconveniences, such as applying a fair evaluation process that grants the evaluated scholars the possibility to comment upon the process and its results.…”

Section: Bottom-up Initiatives At the European Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research assessment in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) is delicate. Assessment procedures meet strong criticisms from SSH scholars and bibliometric research shows that the methods that are usually applied are ill-adapted to SSH research. While until recently research on assessment in the SSH disciplines focused on the deficiencies of the current assessment methods, we present some European initiatives that take a bottom-up approach. They focus on research practices in SSH and reflect on how to assess SSH research with its own approaches instead of applying and adjusting the methods developed for and in the natural and life sciences. This is an important development because we can learn from previous evaluation exercises that whenever scholars felt that assessment procedures were imposed in a top-down manner without proper adjustments to SSH research, it resulted in boycotts or resistance. Applying adequate evaluation methods not only helps foster a better valorization of SSH research within the research community, among policymakers and colleagues from the natural sciences, but it will also help society to better understand SSH's contributions to solving major societal challenges. Therefore, taking the time to encourage bottom-up evaluation initiatives should result in being able to better confront the main challenges facing modern society. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

show abstract

“…The decline in acceptance rate is strongest for authors from mid-ranked economic departments. Bornmann (2011) provides a large-scope overview over academic refereeing processes, finding mixed evidence of a gender bias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On Publication, Refereeing and Working Hard

Baghestanian

Popov

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a model for academia with heterogeneous author types and endogenous effort to explain changes in the publication process in Economics. We analyze the implications of these developments on research output. Lowering the precision of refereeing signals has a negative impact on able authors but invites more submissions from less able authors. Increasing the number of journals stimulates less able authors to submit their papers. The editor can improve the journal's pool of submitted manuscripts by improving the precision of refereeing, but not by lowering quality standards. The submission strategy of an author is informative of his ability.

show abstract

Scientific peer review

Cited by 405 publications

References 198 publications

The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000

The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

On Publication, Refereeing and Working Hard

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About