Do Citations and Readership Identify Seminal Publications?
| Autor: | Herrmannova, Drahomira, Patton, Robert M., Knoth, Petr, Stahl, Christopher G. |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2018 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Herrmannova, D., Patton, R.M., Knoth, P. et al. Scientometrics (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2669-y |
| Druh dokumentu: | Working Paper |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11192-018-2669-y |
| Popis: | In this paper, we show that citation counts work better than a random baseline (by a margin of 10%) in distinguishing excellent research, while Mendeley reader counts don't work better than the baseline. Specifically, we study the potential of these metrics for distinguishing publications that caused a change in a research field from those that have not. The experiment has been conducted on a new dataset for bibliometric research called TrueImpactDataset. TrueImpactDataset is a collection of research publications of two types -- research papers which are considered seminal works in their area and papers which provide a literature review of a research area. We provide overview statistics of the dataset and propose to use it for validating research evaluation metrics. Using the dataset, we conduct a set of experiments to study how citation and reader counts perform in distinguishing these publication types, following the intuition that causing a change in a field signifies research contribution. We show that citation counts help in distinguishing research that strongly influenced later developments from works that predominantly discuss the current state of the art with a degree of accuracy (63%, i.e. 10% over the random baseline). In all setups, Mendeley reader counts perform worse than a random baseline. Comment: Accepted to journal Scientometrics |
| Databáze: | arXiv |
| Externí odkaz: |
|