IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i5d10.1007_s11192-021-03894-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citations versus expert opinions: citation analysis of featured reviews of the American Mathematical Society

Author

Listed:
  • Lawrence Smolinsky

    (Louisiana State University)

  • Daniel S. Sage

    (Louisiana State University)

  • Aaron J. Lercher

    (Louisiana State University)

  • Aaron Cao

    (Carnegie Mellon University)

Abstract

Peer review and citation metrics are two means of gauging the value of scientific research, but the lack of publicly available peer review data makes the comparison of these methods difficult. Mathematics can serve as a useful laboratory for considering these questions because as an exact science, there is a narrow range of reasons for citations. In mathematics, virtually all published articles are post-publication reviewed by mathematicians in Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet) and so the data set was essentially the Web of Science mathematics publications from 1993 to 2004. For a decade, especially important articles were singled out in Mathematical Reviews for featured reviews. In this study, we analyze the bibliometrics of elite articles selected by peer review and by citation count. We conclude that the two notions of significance described by being a featured review article and being highly cited are distinct. This indicates that peer review and citation counts give largely independent determinations of highly distinguished articles. We also consider whether hiring patterns of subfields and mathematicians’ interest in subfields reflect subfields of featured review or highly cited articles. We re-examine data from two earlier studies in light of our methods for implications on the peer review/citation count relationship to a diversity of disciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence Smolinsky & Daniel S. Sage & Aaron J. Lercher & Aaron Cao, 2021. "Citations versus expert opinions: citation analysis of featured reviews of the American Mathematical Society," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3853-3870, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03894-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03894-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-03894-2
    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/s11192-021-03894-2?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. Lawrence Smolinsky & Aaron Lercher & Andrew McDaniel, 2015. "Testing theories of preferential attachment in random networks of citations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2132-2145, October.
    2. Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2015. "Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 451-466.
    3. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    4. Michael H. MacRoberts & Barbara R. MacRoberts, 2018. "The mismeasure of science: Citation analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(3), pages 474-482, March.
    5. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Stephen J. Bensman & Lawrence J. Smolinsky & Alexander I. Pudovkin, 2010. "Mean citation rate per article in mathematics journals: Differences from the scientific model," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(7), pages 1440-1463, July.
    9. 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.
    10. P. Wouters, 1999. "Beyond the holy grail: From citation theory to indicator theories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(3), pages 561-580, March.
    11. Michael S. Patterson & Simon Harris, 2009. "The relationship between reviewers’ quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003–2005," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(2), pages 343-349, August.
    12. Bornmann, Lutz & Osório, António, 2019. "The value and credits of n-authors publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 540-554.
    13. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    14. Stephen J. Bensman & Lawrence J. Smolinsky & Alexander I. Pudovkin, 2010. "Mean citation rate per article in mathematics journals: Differences from the scientific model," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(7), pages 1440-1463, July.
    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. Thelwall, Mike & Kousha, Kayvan & Stuart, Emma & Makita, Meiko & Abdoli, Mahshid & Wilson, Paul & Levitt, Jonathan, 2023. "Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    2. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    3. Lindahl, Jonas, 2018. "Predicting research excellence at the individual level: The importance of publication rate, top journal publications, and top 10% publications in the case of early career mathematicians," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 518-533.
    4. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    5. Sven E. Hug & Mirjam Aeschbach, 2020. "Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Cruz-Castro, Laura & Sanz-Menendez, Luis, 2021. "What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    7. Martin Szomszor & David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1119-1147, May.
    8. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt-Padickakudy & Anna Strauss-Kollin, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, April.
    9. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    10. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    11. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    12. Elena Veretennik & Maria Yudkevich, 2023. "Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3675-3701, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Meyer, Matthias & Waldkirch, Rüdiger W. & Duscher, Irina & Just, Alexander, 2018. "Drivers of citations: An analysis of publications in “top” accounting journals," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 24-46.
    15. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    16. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    17. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2017. "What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals," NBER Working Papers 23282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2016. "Why the referees’ reports I receive as an editor are so much better than the reports I receive as an author?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 967-986, March.
    19. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    20. Andrada Elena Urda-Cîmpean & Sorana D. Bolboacă & Andrei Achimaş-Cadariu & Tudor Cătălin Drugan, 2016. "Knowledge Production in Two Types of Medical PhD Routes—What’s to Gain?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-16, June.

    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:126:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03894-2. 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.