Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.047438618 = product of:
  0.18975447 = sum of:
    0.18975447 = weight(_text_:angewandte in 1713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18975447 = score(doc=1713,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.3084216 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044309065 = queryNorm
        0.61524373 = fieldWeight in 1713, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1713)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The book evaluates the peer reviews presented to the Editorial Office of the journal Angewandte Chemie for all contributions submitted for publication in 1984. The peer review system, since its inception in the 17th century, helps to improve the quality of published papers. The book has 10 chapters, dealing with the peer review as an instrument for the self-regulation of science, as a target for criticism, it deals with the journal Angewandte Chemie, the communications received in 1984, the internal and external evaluations and editorial decisions, the reviewers and the reviews, the reliability of manuscript refereeing, the fairness in manuscript evaluation, the validity of manuscript review and makes suggestions for a reform of the peer-review process

RSWK

Angewandte Chemie <Zeitschrift> / Zeitschriftenaufsatz / Qualität / Gutachten

Subject

Angewandte Chemie <Zeitschrift> / Zeitschriftenaufsatz / Qualität / Gutachten

0.041930214 = product of:
  0.16772085 = sum of:
    0.16772085 = weight(_text_:angewandte in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16772085 = score(doc=3792,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3084216 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044309065 = queryNorm
        0.5438038 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Scientific journals publish an increasing number of articles every year. To steer readers' attention to the most important papers, journals use several techniques (e.g., lead paper). Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC), a leading international journal in chemistry, signals high-quality papers through designating them as a "very important paper" (VIP). This study aims to investigate the citation impact of Communications in AC receiving the special feature VIP, both cumulated and over time. Using propensity score matching, treatment group (VIP) and control group (non-VIP) were balanced for 14 covariates to estimate the unconfounded "average treatment effect on the treated" for the VIP designation. Out of N = 3,011 Communications published in 2007 and 2008, N = 207 received the special feature VIP. For each Communication, data were collected from AC (e.g., referees' ratings) and from the databases Chemical Abstracts (e.g., sections) and the Web of Science (e.g., citations). The estimated unconfounded average treatment effect on the treated (that is, Communications designated as a VIP) was statistically significant and amounted to 19.83 citations. In addition, the special feature VIP fostered the cumulated annual citation growth. For instance, the time until a Communication reached its maximum annual number of citations, was reduced.

0.033544168 = product of:
  0.13417667 = sum of:
    0.13417667 = weight(_text_:angewandte in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13417667 = score(doc=2381,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3084216 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044309065 = queryNorm
        0.43504304 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.

0.029649135 = product of:
  0.11859654 = sum of:
    0.11859654 = weight(_text_:angewandte in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11859654 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3084216 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044309065 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In a recently published PNAS paper, Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano (2008) propose the relative indicator cf as an unbiased indicator for citation performance across disciplines (fields, subject areas). To calculate cf, the citation rate for a single paper is divided by the average number of citations for all papers in the discipline in which the single paper has been categorized. cf values are said to lead to a universality of discipline-specific citation distributions. Using a comprehensive dataset of an evaluation study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), we tested the advantage of using this indicator in practical application at the micro level, as compared with (1) simple citation rates, and (2) z-scores, which have been used in psychological testing for many years for normalization of test scores. To calculate z-scores, the mean number of citations of the papers within a discipline is subtracted from the citation rate of a single paper, and the difference is then divided by the citations' standard deviation for a discipline. Our results indicate that z-scores are better suited than cf values to produce universality of discipline-specific citation distributions.