Cargando…
Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles
It is argued that counting the total number of times a scientific article is cited by others, does neither result in a proxy for its cognitive impact nor for its quality. One would have to distinguish at least substitutable and fundamental references. A supposed correlation between peer review asses...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438428/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28596629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2374-2 |
_version_ | 1783237759144558592 |
---|---|
author | Ricker, Martin |
author_facet | Ricker, Martin |
author_sort | Ricker, Martin |
collection | PubMed |
description | It is argued that counting the total number of times a scientific article is cited by others, does neither result in a proxy for its cognitive impact nor for its quality. One would have to distinguish at least substitutable and fundamental references. A supposed correlation between peer review assessments and citation counts is conceptually problematic, because peer review includes objective as well as subjective considerations (convictions). With refined methods, however, a differential citation analysis might be able in the future to answer if a given article did or did not have positive cognitive impact on subsequent research. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5438428 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer Netherlands |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54384282017-06-06 Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles Ricker, Martin Scientometrics Article It is argued that counting the total number of times a scientific article is cited by others, does neither result in a proxy for its cognitive impact nor for its quality. One would have to distinguish at least substitutable and fundamental references. A supposed correlation between peer review assessments and citation counts is conceptually problematic, because peer review includes objective as well as subjective considerations (convictions). With refined methods, however, a differential citation analysis might be able in the future to answer if a given article did or did not have positive cognitive impact on subsequent research. Springer Netherlands 2017-04-10 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5438428/ /pubmed/28596629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2374-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Article Ricker, Martin Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles |
title | Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles |
title_full | Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles |
title_fullStr | Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles |
title_full_unstemmed | Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles |
title_short | Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles |
title_sort | letter to the editor: about the quality and impact of scientific articles |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438428/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28596629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2374-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rickermartin lettertotheeditoraboutthequalityandimpactofscientificarticles |