IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v7y2013i2p286-291.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Bornmann, Lutz
  • Leydesdorff, Loet

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2013. "The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 286-291.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:7:y:2013:i:2:p:286-291
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175115771200106X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2008. "Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(5), pages 830-837, March.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "How are new citation‐based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(7), pages 1327-1336, July.
    3. Martin, Ben R. & Irvine, John, 1993. "Assessing basic research : Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 106-106, April.
    4. Eduardo Figueredo, 2006. "The numerical equivalence between the impact factor of journals and the quality of the articles," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(11), pages 1561-1561, September.
    5. Franceschet, Massimo & Costantini, Antonio, 2011. "The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 275-291.
    6. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Werner Marx & Hermann Schier & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2011. "A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: do the editors of a high profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(4), pages 857-879, October.
    7. Johan Bollen & Herbert Van de Sompel & Aric Hagberg & Ryan Chute, 2009. "A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(6), pages 1-11, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Schier, Hermann & Marx, Werner & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2012. "What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 11-18.
    3. Andersen, Jens Peter, 2017. "An empirical and theoretical critique of the Euclidean index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 455-465.
    4. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2010. "The h index research output measurement: Two approaches to enhance its accuracy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 407-414.
    5. Walters, William H., 2017. "Do subjective journal ratings represent whole journals or typical articles? Unweighted or weighted citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 730-744.
    6. Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2018. "The bibliometric quotient (BQ), or how to measure a researcher’s performance capacity: A Bayesian Poisson Rasch model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1282-1295.
    7. Gangan Prathap, 2019. "The Pinski–Narin influence weight and the Ramanujacharyulu power-weakness ratio indicators revisited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1173-1185, May.
    8. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    9. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.
    10. Jens Peter Andersen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2011. "Price revisited: on the growth of dissertations in eight research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 371-383, August.
    11. Lorna Wildgaard & Jesper W. Schneider & Birger Larsen, 2014. "A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 125-158, October.
    12. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2415-2426, December.
    13. Amodio, Pierluigi & Brugnano, Luigi & Scarselli, Filippo, 2021. "Implementation of the PaperRank and AuthorRank indices in the Scopus database," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    14. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    15. Franceschet, Massimo, 2010. "Journal influence factors," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 239-248.
    16. Jacques Wainer & Paula Vieira, 2013. "Correlations between bibliometrics and peer evaluation for all disciplines: the evaluation of Brazilian scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 395-410, August.
    17. Leydesdorff, Loet & Rafols, Ismael, 2011. "Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 87-100.
    18. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Emanuela Reale, 2019. "Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 537-554, October.
    19. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2010. "A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 211-220.
    20. Abramo, Giovanni, 2018. "Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 590-597.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:7:y:2013:i:2:p:286-291. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.