Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels

被引:60
作者
Mohammadi, Ehsan [1 ]
Thelwall, Mike [1 ]
机构
[1] Wolverhampton Univ, Sch Technol, Stat Cybermetr Res Grp, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, W Midlands, England
关键词
Faculty of F1000; Altmetrics; Beyond impact; Research assessment; Post-publishing peer review; RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISE; CITATION COUNTS; BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS; PEER JUDGMENT; PUBLICATIONS; LIBRARY; RATINGS; FACULTY; WEB;
D O I
10.1007/s11192-013-0993-9
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Faculty of 1000 (F1000) is a post-publishing peer review web site where experts evaluate and rate biomedical publications. F1000 reviewers also assign labels to each paper from a standard list or article types. This research examines the relationship between article types, citation counts and F1000 article factors (FFa). For this purpose, a random sample of F1000 medical articles from the years 2007 and 2008 were studied. In seven out of the nine cases, there were no significant differences between the article types in terms of citation counts and FFa scores. Nevertheless, citation counts and FFa scores were significantly different for two article types: "New finding" and "Changes clinical practice": FFa scores value the appropriateness of medical research for clinical practice and "New finding" articles are more highly cited. It seems that highlighting key features of medical articles alongside ratings by Faculty members of F1000 could help to reveal the hidden value of some medical papers.
引用
收藏
页码:383 / 395
页数:13
相关论文
共 63 条
  • [1] Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university
    Aksnes, DW
    Taxt, RE
    [J]. RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2004, 13 (01) : 33 - 41
  • [2] Looking for Landmarks: The Role of Expert Review and Bibliometric Analysis in Evaluating Scientific Publication Outputs
    Allen, Liz
    Jones, Ceri
    Dolby, Kevin
    Lynn, David
    Walport, Mark
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2009, 4 (06):
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1984, The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication
  • [4] Comparing of Science Bibliometric Statistics Obtained From the Web and Scopus
    Archambault, Eric
    Campbell, David
    Gingras, Yves
    Lariviere, Vincent
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2009, 60 (07): : 1320 - 1326
  • [5] Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews
    Banzi, Rita
    Moja, Lorenzo
    Pistotti, Vanna
    Facchini, Andrea
    Liberati, Alessandro
    [J]. HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2011, 9
  • [6] Bornmann L, 2012, DIGITAL LIB APPL
  • [7] What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior
    Bornmann, Luti
    Daniel, Hans-Dieter
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, 2008, 64 (01) : 45 - 80
  • [8] The Multilayered Nature of Reference Selection
    Camacho-Minano, Maria-del-Mar
    Nunez-Nickel, Manuel
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2009, 60 (04): : 754 - 777
  • [9] Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence
    Chalmers, Iain
    Glasziou, Paul
    [J]. LANCET, 2009, 374 (9683) : 86 - 89
  • [10] CHANCE AND CONSENSUS IN PEER-REVIEW
    COLE, S
    COLE, JR
    SIMON, GA
    [J]. SCIENCE, 1981, 214 (4523) : 881 - 886