Ribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
| [unmarkierte Version] | [unmarkierte Version] |
K |
K |
||
| Zeile 1: | Zeile 1: | ||
| − | + | The information on [http://about:blank Etc dysfunction {can also|may] subjective assessment come in the Faculty1000 database [26], where published papers are rated by researchers, and from the scoring of previously published articles by a Wellcome Trust grant panel (the data are obtainable in Dryad [11]). It's currently known that researchers and others price papers a lot more highly if they're from journals with larger IFs [2], but Eyre-Walker and Stoletzki meticulously demonstrate the extent of this and manage for the inflationary impact to reveal the crux of their study--that there's a woefully tiny correlation (r,0.two) in between the unique scores made by two assessors on the same paper (N.1,000). Furthermore, in relation to ``impact,'' assessment scores explain even much less from the variation in citations amongst papers (r0.15). As certainly one of the reviewers on the report, Carl Bergstrom, stated: ``What it shows is just not that evaluators fail to predict some objective measure of merit--it is not clear, following all, what that objective measure of merit may well even be. What this paper shows is the fact that what ever merit could be, scientists can't be doing a fantastic job of evaluating it after they rank the significance or good quality of papers. In the (lack of) correlation among assessor scores, many of the variation in ranking has to be as a result of `error' instead of actual top quality differences.'' But the issues are potentially a lot more insidious than this. Citations are also inflated by the IF (even though there is much more variation in citations inside than in between journals; see [1] for their Figure 5). Once controlled for, on the other hand, the variation in citation counts per se that can't be explained by ``merit'' turns out to become even bigger than the unexplained variance within the subjective scoring of scientists. The authors conclude that papers are consequently accumulating citations basically by opportunity, a aspect that assists to account for the low correlation amongst assessor score and citations. This also implies that we do not however comprehend why some papers accumulate much more citations than other individuals, or what citation counts are telling us about person articles in general.Ribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, offered the original author and source are credited. Competing Interests Jonathan Eisen is chair of your PLOS Biology Advisory Board. Catriona MacCallum and Cameron Neylon are employees of PLOS whose salary is supported by PLOS earnings derived from the publication of open-access papers. E-mail: cmaccallum@plos.orgBox 1. The Error of Our WaysThe evaluation that Eyre-Walker and Stoletzki delivers is clever and you need to read it in complete. The data on subjective assessment come in the Faculty1000 database [26], exactly where published papers are rated by researchers, and from the scoring of previously published articles by a Wellcome Trust grant panel (the data are available in Dryad [11]). Each of the papers assessed had been published within a single year (2005) and citation counts towards the papers have been collated from Google Scholar [27] in 2011. The five-year IFs from 2010 had been utilized as they had been over a equivalent timescale. | |
Version vom 23. Januar 2018, 03:46 Uhr
The information on Etc dysfunction {can also|may subjective assessment come in the Faculty1000 database [26], where published papers are rated by researchers, and from the scoring of previously published articles by a Wellcome Trust grant panel (the data are obtainable in Dryad [11]). It's currently known that researchers and others price papers a lot more highly if they're from journals with larger IFs [2], but Eyre-Walker and Stoletzki meticulously demonstrate the extent of this and manage for the inflationary impact to reveal the crux of their study--that there's a woefully tiny correlation (r,0.two) in between the unique scores made by two assessors on the same paper (N.1,000). Furthermore, in relation to ``impact, assessment scores explain even much less from the variation in citations amongst papers (r0.15). As certainly one of the reviewers on the report, Carl Bergstrom, stated: ``What it shows is just not that evaluators fail to predict some objective measure of merit--it is not clear, following all, what that objective measure of merit may well even be. What this paper shows is the fact that what ever merit could be, scientists can't be doing a fantastic job of evaluating it after they rank the significance or good quality of papers. In the (lack of) correlation among assessor scores, many of the variation in ranking has to be as a result of `error' instead of actual top quality differences. But the issues are potentially a lot more insidious than this. Citations are also inflated by the IF (even though there is much more variation in citations inside than in between journals; see [1] for their Figure 5). Once controlled for, on the other hand, the variation in citation counts per se that can't be explained by ``merit turns out to become even bigger than the unexplained variance within the subjective scoring of scientists. The authors conclude that papers are consequently accumulating citations basically by opportunity, a aspect that assists to account for the low correlation amongst assessor score and citations. This also implies that we do not however comprehend why some papers accumulate much more citations than other individuals, or what citation counts are telling us about person articles in general.Ribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, offered the original author and source are credited. Competing Interests Jonathan Eisen is chair of your PLOS Biology Advisory Board. Catriona MacCallum and Cameron Neylon are employees of PLOS whose salary is supported by PLOS earnings derived from the publication of open-access papers. E-mail: cmaccallum@plos.orgBox 1. The Error of Our WaysThe evaluation that Eyre-Walker and Stoletzki delivers is clever and you need to read it in complete. The data on subjective assessment come in the Faculty1000 database [26], exactly where published papers are rated by researchers, and from the scoring of previously published articles by a Wellcome Trust grant panel (the data are available in Dryad [11]). Each of the papers assessed had been published within a single year (2005) and citation counts towards the papers have been collated from Google Scholar [27] in 2011. The five-year IFs from 2010 had been utilized as they had been over a equivalent timescale.
