-
Mutz, R.; Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions : a multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex-ante and ex-post peer evaluation data from the Austrian science fund (2015)
0.01
0.008691031 = product of:
0.017382061 = sum of:
0.017382061 = product of:
0.034764122 = sum of:
0.034764122 = weight(_text_:science in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034764122 = score(doc=2270,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- It is essential for research funding organizations to ensure both the validity and fairness of the grant approval procedure. The ex-ante peer evaluation (EXANTE) of N?=?8,496 grant applications submitted to the Austrian Science Fund from 1999 to 2009 was statistically analyzed. For 1,689 funded research projects an ex-post peer evaluation (EXPOST) was also available; for the rest of the grant applications a multilevel missing data imputation approach was used to consider verification bias for the first time in peer-review research. Without imputation, the predictive validity of EXANTE was low (r?=?.26) but underestimated due to verification bias, and with imputation it was r?=?.49. That is, the decision-making procedure is capable of selecting the best research proposals for funding. In the EXANTE there were several potential biases (e.g., gender). With respect to the EXPOST there was only one real bias (discipline-specific and year-specific differential prediction). The novelty of this contribution is, first, the combining of theoretical concepts of validity and fairness with a missing data imputation approach to correct for verification bias and, second, multilevel modeling to test peer review-based funding decisions for both validity and fairness in terms of potential and real biases.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2321-2339
-
Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: What is behind the curtain of the Leiden Ranking? (2015)
0.01
0.008515436 = product of:
0.017030872 = sum of:
0.017030872 = product of:
0.034061745 = sum of:
0.034061745 = weight(_text_:science in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034061745 = score(doc=2171,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 2171, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Even with very well-documented rankings of universities, it is difficult for an individual university to reconstruct its position in the ranking. What is the reason behind whether a university places higher or lower in the ranking? Taking the example of ETH Zurich, the aim of this communication is to reconstruct how the high position of ETHZ (in Europe rank no. 1 in PP[top 10%]) in the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Leiden Ranking 2013 in the field "social sciences, arts and humanities" came about. According to our analyses, the bibliometric indicator values of a university depend very strongly on weights that result in differing estimates of both the total number of a university's publications and the number of publications with a citation impact in the 90th percentile, or PP(top 10%). In addition, we examine the effect of weights at the level of individual publications. Based on the results, we offer recommendations for improving the Leiden Ranking (for example, publication of sample calculations to increase transparency).
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1950-1953
-
Mutz, R.; Wolbring, T.; Daniel, H.-D.: ¬The effect of the "very important paper" (VIP) designation in Angewandte Chemie International Edition on citation impact : a propensity score matching analysis (2017)
0.01
0.0070961965 = product of:
0.014192393 = sum of:
0.014192393 = product of:
0.028384786 = sum of:
0.028384786 = weight(_text_:science in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028384786 = score(doc=3792,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2139-2153
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007)
0.01
0.0070248763 = product of:
0.014049753 = sum of:
0.014049753 = product of:
0.028099505 = sum of:
0.028099505 = weight(_text_:science in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028099505 = score(doc=477,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.9, S.1381-1385
-
Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D.: Data sources for performing citation analysis : an overview (2008)
0.01
0.0070248763 = product of:
0.014049753 = sum of:
0.014049753 = product of:
0.028099505 = sum of:
0.028099505 = weight(_text_:science in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028099505 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- Science citation index
-
Daniel, H.-D.: Guardians of science : fairness and reliabiblity of peer review (1993)
0.01
0.0056769573 = product of:
0.011353915 = sum of:
0.011353915 = product of:
0.02270783 = sum of:
0.02270783 = weight(_text_:science in 1713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02270783 = score(doc=1713,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.16463245 = fieldWeight in 1713, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1713)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008)
0.01
0.0056769573 = product of:
0.011353915 = sum of:
0.011353915 = product of:
0.02270783 = sum of:
0.02270783 = weight(_text_:science in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02270783 = score(doc=2381,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.16463245 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Vgl. auch: Erratum Re: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Agewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(2008) no.12, S.2037-2038.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.11, S.1841-1852
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? : The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine (2007)
0.01
0.0050177686 = product of:
0.010035537 = sum of:
0.010035537 = product of:
0.020071074 = sum of:
0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020071074 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1100-1107
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? : a comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine (2008)
0.01
0.0050177686 = product of:
0.010035537 = sum of:
0.010035537 = product of:
0.020071074 = sum of:
0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020071074 = score(doc=1608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.5, S.830-837
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Universality of citation distributions : a validation of Radicchi et al.'s relative indicator cf = c/c0 at the micro level using data from chemistry (2009)
0.01
0.0050177686 = product of:
0.010035537 = sum of:
0.010035537 = product of:
0.020071074 = sum of:
0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020071074 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1664-1670
-
Bornmann, L.; Schier, H.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-D.: 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 (2011)
0.01
0.0050177686 = product of:
0.010035537 = sum of:
0.010035537 = product of:
0.020071074 = sum of:
0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020071074 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.61-71
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multilevel-statistical reformulation of citation-based university rankings : the Leiden ranking 2011/2012 (2013)
0.01
0.0050177686 = product of:
0.010035537 = sum of:
0.010035537 = product of:
0.020071074 = sum of:
0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020071074 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.052363027 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.8, S.1649-1658
