IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v25y2016i2p170-183..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The bibliometric indicators as predictors of the final decision of the peer review

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth S. Vieira
  • José A.N.F. Gomes

Abstract

Peer review of candidates' proposals for research position is generally used as the best method available to select the most promising researchers, but it is very costly and has its limitations. This article analyzes to what extent bibliometric indicators can predict the results of the peer review exercise using the example of a particular selection process. Two composite indicators are found to be strongly correlated with peer review-based decisions. We calculated that the probability of the estimated prediction, as determined by the composite indicators, for a selected applicant to be higher than the estimated prediction determined for a rejected applicant is about 75%.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth S. Vieira & José A.N.F. Gomes, 2016. "The bibliometric indicators as predictors of the final decision of the peer review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 170-183.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:25:y:2016:i:2:p:170-183.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvv037
    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. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander, 2021. "Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).

    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:25:y:2016:i:2:p:170-183.. 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.