Hors campus: Membres de la communauté universitaire ou de la HES-SO: n'oubliez pas d'utiliser le VPN de votre institution pour bénéficier de tous les accès.
Étendre à toutes les références (sans texte intégral)
Plusieurs versions
An unusual dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous of Romania and the island rule
Sues, Hans-Dieter
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 31 August 2010, Vol.107(35), pp.15310-1
[Revue évaluée par les pairs]
Titre: The validity of staff editors' initial evaluations of manuscripts: a case study of Angewandte Chemie International Edition Auteur:Bornmann, Lutz Contributeur:Daniel, Hans-Dieter Sujet:Peer review
- Validity
- Staff editor's initial evaluation Description:
This paper investigates the extent to which staff editors' evaluations of submitted manuscripts—that is, internal evaluations carried out before external peer reviewing—are valid. To answer this question we utilized data on the manuscript reviewing process at the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition. The results of this study indicate that the initial internal evaluations are valid. Further, it appears that external review is indispensable for the decision on the publication worthiness of manuscripts: (1) For the majority of submitted manuscripts, staff editors are uncertain about publication worthiness; (2) there is a statistically significant proportional difference in "Rejection” between the editors' initial evaluation and the final editorial decision (after peer review); (3) three-quarters of the manuscripts that were rated negatively at the initial internal evaluation but accepted for publication after the peer review had far above-average citation counts
Publication en relation:
Scientometrics. - 2010/85/3/681-687
Document hôte:Scientometrics Identifiant:
10.1007/s11192-010-0215-7 (DOI)
Titre: Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review - A citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants Auteur:Bornmann, Lutz Contributeur:Daniel, Hans-Dieter Description:
Summary: We investigated committee peer review for awarding long-term fellowships to post-doctoral researchers as practiced by the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (B.I.F.) - a foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine. Assessing the validity of selection decisions requires a generally accepted criterion for research impact. A widely used approach is to use citation counts as a proxy for the impact of scientific research. Therefore, a citation analysis for articles published previous to the applicants' approval or rejection for a B.I.F. fellowship was conducted. Based on our model estimation (negative binomial regression model), journal articles that had been published by applicants approved for a fellowship award (n = 64) prior to applying for the B.I.F. fellowship award can be expected to have 37% (straight counts of citations) and 49% (complete counts of citations) more citations than articles that had been published by rejected applicants (n = 333). Furthermore, comparison with international scientific reference values revealed (a) that articles published by successful and non-successful applicants are cited considerably more often than the "average” publication and (b) that excellent research performance can be expected more of successful than non-successful applicants. The findings confirm that the foundation is not only achieving its goal of selecting the best junior scientists for fellowship awards, but also successfully attracting highly talented young scientists to apply for B.I.F. fellowships
Publication en relation:
Scientometrics. - 2006/68/3/427-440
Document hôte:Scientometrics Identifiant:
10.1007/s11192-006-0121-1 (DOI)