IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v102y2015i3d10.1007_s11192-014-1514-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The interest of the scientific community in expert opinions from journal peer review procedures

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Bornmann

    (Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society)

  • Robin Haunschild

    (Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research)

Abstract

We have used the F1000Prime data set to investigate the reception of expert opinions, which were published under their own DOI, in the scientific community (n p = 114,582 papers with n e = 149,119 expert opinions). F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system in which important literature from the biomedical area is read and assessed by selected researchers. We have investigated the reception of the expert opinions with the help of data from the Mendeley reference manager. As our Mendeley investigation shows, we were only able to find Mendeley counts for 11 expert opinions. Thus, a total of only 11 users have saved an expert opinion in their reference manager.

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2015. "The interest of the scientific community in expert opinions from journal peer review procedures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2187-2188, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:102:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1514-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1514-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1514-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-014-1514-1?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. Xuemei Li & Mike Thelwall & Dean Giustini, 2012. "Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 461-471, May.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Hermann Schier & Werner Marx & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2011. "Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high‐impact submissions? A study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 61-71, January.
    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. Mingyang Wang & Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1575-1595, June.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2022. "Empirical analysis of recent temporal dynamics of research fields: Annual publications in chemistry and related areas as an example," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    3. Lawrence Smolinsky & Aaron Lercher, 2012. "Citation rates in mathematics: a study of variation by subdiscipline," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 911-924, June.
    4. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    5. Ying He & Kun Tian & Xiaoran Xu, 2023. "A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 587-607, January.
    6. Christian Schlögl & Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Kris Jack & Peter Kraker, 2014. "Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1113-1128, November.
    7. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2015. "Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 263-272.
    8. Thelwall, Mike & Wilson, Paul, 2014. "Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 963-971.
    9. Zoller, Daniel & Doerfel, Stephan & Jäschke, Robert & Stumme, Gerd & Hotho, Andreas, 2016. "Posted, visited, exported: Altmetrics in the social tagging system BibSonomy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 732-749.
    10. Zhiqi Wang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Yue Chen, 2020. "The impact of preprints in Library and Information Science: an analysis of citations, usage and social attention indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1403-1423, November.
    11. Zohreh Zahedi & Rodrigo Costas & Paul Wouters, 2014. "How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1491-1513, November.
    12. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2014. "Astrophysics publications on arXiv, Scopus and Mendeley: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(1), pages 217-225, July.
    13. Ortega, José Luis, 2015. "Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 39-49.
    14. Haunschild, Robin & Daniels, Angela D. & Bornmann, Lutz, 2022. "Scores of a specific field-normalized indicator calculated with different approaches of field-categorization: Are the scores different or similar?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    15. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1832-1846, September.
    16. Azzurra Ragone & Katsiaryna Mirylenka & Fabio Casati & Maurizio Marchese, 2013. "On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 317-356, November.
    17. Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese & Paolo Ciancarini & Aldo Gangemi & Silvio Peroni & Francesco Poggi & Valentina Presutti, 2019. "Do altmetrics work for assessing research quality?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 539-562, February.
    18. Lutz Bornmann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2019. "Normalisation of citation impact in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 841-884, August.
    19. Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "An evaluation of impacts in “Nanoscience & nanotechnology”: steps towards standards for citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 35-55, January.
    20. Björn Hammarfelt, 2014. "Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1419-1430, November.

    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:spr:scient:v:102:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1514-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.