 Quantifying perceived impact of scientific publicationsFilippo Radicchi, Alexander Weissman and Johan Bollen Journal of Informetrics, 2017, vol. 11, issue 3, 704-712 Abstract: We report on an empirical verification of the degree to which citation numbers represent scientific impact as it is actually perceived by experts in their respective field. We run a survey of about 2000 corresponding authors who performed a pairwise impact assessment task across more than 20,000 scientific articles. Results of the survey show that citation data and perceived impact do not align well, unless one properly accounts for psychological biases that affect the opinions of experts with respect to their own papers vs. those of others. Researchers tend to prefer their own publications to the most cited papers in their field of research. There is only a mild positive correlation between the number of citations of top-cited papers and expert preference in pairwise comparisons. This also applies to pairs of papers with several orders of magnitude differences in their total number of accumulated citations. However, when researchers were asked to choose among pairs of their own papers, thus eliminating the bias favouring one's own papers over those of others, they did systematically prefer the most cited article. We conclude that, when scientists have full information and are making unbiased choices, expert opinion on impact is congruent with citation numbers. Date: 2017 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:3:p:704-712 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.010 Access Statistics for this article Journal of Informetrics is currently edited by Leo Egghe More articles in Journal of Informetrics from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.