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: | ||
| − | + | Additionally they neatly sidestep defining merit independently, leaving it as what ever it can be that tends to make someone score a paper very. It is actually already recognized that researchers and other individuals rate papers extra highly if they are from [http://www.medchemexpress.com/ag-1478.html Tyrphostin AG-1478 cost] journals with higher IFs [2], but Eyre-Walker and Stoletzki carefully demonstrate the extent of this and handle for the inflationary impact to reveal the crux of their study--that there's a woefully tiny correlation (r,0.two) amongst the different scores made by two assessors of the similar paper (N.1,000). Furthermore, in relation to ``impact,'' assessment scores clarify even much less from the variation in citations involving papers (r0.15). As one of the reviewers in the short article, Carl Bergstrom, stated: ``What it shows is not that evaluators fail to predict some objective measure of merit--it isn't clear, soon after all, what that objective measure of merit could possibly even be. What this paper shows is that what ever merit may be, scientists can't be carrying out a superb job of evaluating it when they rank the value or quality of papers. In the (lack of) correlation amongst assessor scores, the majority of the variation in ranking must be due to `error' rather than actual top quality differences.'' However the issues are potentially far more insidious than this. Citations are also inflated by the IF (although there's a lot more variation in citations inside than in between journals; see [1] for their Figure five). As soon as controlled for, even so, 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 likelihood, a issue that assists to account for the low correlation in between assessor score and citations. This also implies that we do not however realize why some papers accumulate a lot more citations than other folks, or what citation counts are telling us about individual articles in general.Ribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, supplied the original author and supply are credited. Competing Interests Jonathan Eisen is chair of your PLOS Biology Advisory Board. Catriona MacCallum and Cameron Neylon are staff 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 analysis that Eyre-Walker and Stoletzki offers is clever and you should read it in full. The information on subjective assessment come from 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 accessible in Dryad [11]). All the papers assessed had been published in a single year (2005) and citation counts for the papers have been collated from Google Scholar [27] in 2011. The five-year IFs from 2010 had been used as they had been over a similar timescale. They reached their conclusions by partitioning the variation within the assessment scores along with the number of citations that can be attributed either to ``merit'' or to ``error'' (i.e. | |
Version vom 23. Januar 2018, 05:25 Uhr
Additionally they neatly sidestep defining merit independently, leaving it as what ever it can be that tends to make someone score a paper very. It is actually already recognized that researchers and other individuals rate papers extra highly if they are from Tyrphostin AG-1478 cost journals with higher IFs [2], but Eyre-Walker and Stoletzki carefully demonstrate the extent of this and handle for the inflationary impact to reveal the crux of their study--that there's a woefully tiny correlation (r,0.two) amongst the different scores made by two assessors of the similar paper (N.1,000). Furthermore, in relation to ``impact, assessment scores clarify even much less from the variation in citations involving papers (r0.15). As one of the reviewers in the short article, Carl Bergstrom, stated: ``What it shows is not that evaluators fail to predict some objective measure of merit--it isn't clear, soon after all, what that objective measure of merit could possibly even be. What this paper shows is that what ever merit may be, scientists can't be carrying out a superb job of evaluating it when they rank the value or quality of papers. In the (lack of) correlation amongst assessor scores, the majority of the variation in ranking must be due to `error' rather than actual top quality differences. However the issues are potentially far more insidious than this. Citations are also inflated by the IF (although there's a lot more variation in citations inside than in between journals; see [1] for their Figure five). As soon as controlled for, even so, 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 likelihood, a issue that assists to account for the low correlation in between assessor score and citations. This also implies that we do not however realize why some papers accumulate a lot more citations than other folks, or what citation counts are telling us about individual articles in general.Ribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, supplied the original author and supply are credited. Competing Interests Jonathan Eisen is chair of your PLOS Biology Advisory Board. Catriona MacCallum and Cameron Neylon are staff 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 analysis that Eyre-Walker and Stoletzki offers is clever and you should read it in full. The information on subjective assessment come from 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 accessible in Dryad [11]). All the papers assessed had been published in a single year (2005) and citation counts for the papers have been collated from Google Scholar [27] in 2011. The five-year IFs from 2010 had been used as they had been over a similar timescale. They reached their conclusions by partitioning the variation within the assessment scores along with the number of citations that can be attributed either to ``merit or to ``error (i.e.
