Showing 1–2 of 2 results for author: Lercher, A J
-
Co-author weighting in bibliometric methodology and subfields of a scientific discipline
Authors:
Lawrence Smolinsky,
Aaron J. Lercher
Abstract:
Collaborative work and co-authorship are fundamental to the advancement of modern science. However, it is not clear how collaboration should be measured in achievement-based metrics. Co-author weighted credit introduces distortions into the bibliometric description of a discipline. It puts great weight on collaboration - not based on the results of collaboration - but purely because of the existen…
▽ More
Collaborative work and co-authorship are fundamental to the advancement of modern science. However, it is not clear how collaboration should be measured in achievement-based metrics. Co-author weighted credit introduces distortions into the bibliometric description of a discipline. It puts great weight on collaboration - not based on the results of collaboration - but purely because of the existence of collaborations. In terms of publication and citation impact, it artificially favors some subdisciplines. In order to understand how credit is given in a co-author weighted system (like the NRC's method), we introduced credit spaces. We include a study of the discipline of physics to illustrate the method. Indicators are introduced to measure the proportion of a credit space awarded to a subfield or a set of authors.
△ Less
Submitted 11 May, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
-
Citations versus expert opinions: Citation analysis of Featured Reviews of the American Mathematical Society
Authors:
Lawrence Smolinsky,
Daniel S. Sage,
Aaron J. Lercher,
Aaron Cao
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 ar…
▽ More
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 reexamine data from two earlier studies in light of our methods for implications on the peer review/citation count relationship to a diversity of disciplines.
△ Less
Submitted 16 December, 2020; v1 submitted 11 May, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
