IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0118446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer-Selected “Best Papers”—Are They Really That “Good”?

Author

Listed:
  • Jacques Wainer
  • Michael Eckmann
  • Anderson Rocha

Abstract

Background: Peer evaluation is the cornerstone of science evaluation. In this paper, we analyze whether or not a form of peer evaluation, the pre-publication selection of the best papers in Computer Science (CS) conferences, is better than random, when considering future citations received by the papers. Methods: Considering 12 conferences (for several years), we collected the citation counts from Scopus for both the best papers and the non-best papers. For a different set of 17 conferences, we collected the data from Google Scholar. For each data set, we computed the proportion of cases whereby the best paper has more citations. We also compare this proportion for years before 2010 and after to evaluate if there is a propaganda effect. Finally, we count the proportion of best papers that are in the top 10% and 20% most cited for each conference instance. Results: The probability that a best paper will receive more citations than a non best paper is 0.72 (95% CI = 0.66, 0.77) for the Scopus data, and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.74, 0.81) for the Scholar data. There are no significant changes in the probabilities for different years. Also, 51% of the best papers are among the top 10% most cited papers in each conference/year, and 64% of them are among the top 20% most cited. Discussion: There is strong evidence that the selection of best papers in Computer Science conferences is better than a random selection, and that a significant number of the best papers are among the top cited papers in the conference.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacques Wainer & Michael Eckmann & Anderson Rocha, 2015. "Peer-Selected “Best Papers”—Are They Really That “Good”?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0118446
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118446
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118446&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0118446?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2010. "Web of Science with the Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes: the case of computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(3), pages 809-824, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Vieira, Elizabeth S. & Cabral, José A.S. & Gomes, José A.N.F., 2014. "How good is a model based on bibliometric indicators in predicting the final decisions made by peers?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 390-405.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Ludo Waltman & Rodrigo Costas, 2014. "F1000 Recommendations as a Potential New Data Source for Research Evaluation: A Comparison With Citations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(3), pages 433-445, March.
    7. Rinia, E. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N. & van Vuren, H. G. & van Raan, A. F. J., 1998. "Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 95-107, May.
    8. David Michayluk & Ralf Zurbruegg, 2014. "Do lead articles signal higher quality in the digital age? Evidence from finance journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 961-973, February.
    9. Franceschet, Massimo & Costantini, Antonio, 2011. "The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 275-291.
    10. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2005. "Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 65(3), pages 391-392, December.
    11. Alonso, S. & Cabrerizo, F.J. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F., 2009. "h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 273-289.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2015. "The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 529-541.
    4. Deming Lin & Tianhui Gong & Wenbin Liu & Martin Meyer, 2020. "An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2283-2298, December.
    5. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    6. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2014. "An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 449-477.
    7. 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.
    8. Sidiropoulos, A. & Gogoglou, A. & Katsaros, D. & Manolopoulos, Y., 2016. "Gazing at the skyline for star scientists," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 789-813.
    9. Nadia Simoes & Nuno Crespo, 2020. "A flexible approach for measuring author-level publishing performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 331-355, January.
    10. Biró, Tamás S. & Telcs, András & Józsa, Máté & Néda, Zoltán, 2023. "Gintropic scaling of scientometric indexes," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 618(C).
    11. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    12. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Yang Zhang, 2023. "The effect of social media knowledge cascade: an analysis of scientific papers diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5169-5195, September.
    13. M. Ausloos, 2013. "A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 895-909, June.
    14. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2011. "Structured evaluation of the scientific output of academic research groups by recent h-based indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 64-74.
    15. 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.
    16. Serge Galam, 2011. "Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 365-379, October.
    17. Cabrerizo, F.J. & Alonso, S. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F., 2010. "q2-Index: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the Hirsch core," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 23-28.
    18. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    19. Daniella B Deutz & Evgenios Vlachos & Dorte Drongstrup & Bertil F Dorch & Charlotte Wien, 2020. "Effective publication strategies in clinical research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    20. C. O. S. Sorzano & J. Vargas & G. Caffarena-Fernández & A. Iriarte, 2014. "Comparing scientific performance among equals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1731-1745, 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:plo:pone00:0118446. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.