IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v18y2009i1p25-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The percentage of reviews in research output: a simple measure of research esteem

Author

Listed:
  • Grant Lewison

Abstract

This paper introduces a new and easy-to-determine indicator for research evaluation, namely the percentage of reviews (PR) within a group of papers (articles, notes and reviews). Because reviews are commissioned from, or submitted by, relatively senior researchers, their frequency plausibly provides a measure of the esteem in which a country's (or institution's) top researchers are held. We show that, just as with citation indicators, PR has increased with time, and that it varies substantially with major scientific field and by country, but rather less with sub-field and research level within medical research. It correlates quite well with national citation measures although manifesting an Anglophone bias, and also with the propensity of smaller European countries to co-author papers with US researchers. Two worked examples are given to show potential applications of the new indicator. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Grant Lewison, 2009. "The percentage of reviews in research output: a simple measure of research esteem," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 25-37, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:18:y:2009:i:1:p:25-37
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820209X410406
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grant Lewison & Valentina Markusova, 2011. "Female researchers in Russia: have they become more visible?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 139-152, October.
    2. Thed Leeuwen & Rodrigo Costas & Clara Calero-Medina & Martijn Visser, 2013. "The role of editorial material in bibliometric research performance assessments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 817-828, May.
    3. Rodrigo Costas & Thed N. Leeuwen & María Bordons, 2012. "Referencing patterns of individual researchers: Do top scientists rely on more extensive information sources?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2433-2450, December.
    4. Grant Lewison & Philip Roe, 2012. "The evaluation of Indian cancer research, 1990–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 167-181, October.
    5. Olesia Iefremova & Kamil Wais & Marcin Kozak, 2018. "Biographical articles in scientific literature: analysis of articles indexed in Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1695-1719, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:18:y:2009:i:1:p:25-37. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.