No abstract

Scientific journals must deal with the following questions concerning the predictive validity of editorial decisions. Is the best scientific work selected from submitted manuscripts? Does selection of the best manuscripts also mean selecting papers that after publication show top citation performance within their fields? Taking the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition as an example, this study proposes a new methodology for investigating whether manuscripts that are most worthy of publication are in fact selected validly. First, the influence on citation of the accepted and rejected but then published elsewhere manuscripts was appraised on the basis of percentile impact classes scaled in a subfield of chemistry and, second, the association between the decisions on selection and the influence on citation of the manuscripts was determined by using a multilevel logistic regression for ordinal categories. This approach has many advantages over methodologies that were used in previous research studies on the predictive validity of editorial selection decisions.

No abstract

a b s t r a c tExamining a comprehensive set of papers (n = 1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases -Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts -were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the convergent validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of convergent validity of the citation analysis based on the GS data.

In the humanities and social sciences, bibliometric methods for the assessment of research performance are (so far) less common. This study uses a concrete example in an attempt to evaluate a research institute from the area of social sciences and humanities with the help of data from Google Scholar (GS). In order to use GS for a bibliometric study, we developed procedures for the normalization of citation impact, building on the procedures of classical bibliometrics. In order to test the convergent validity of the normalized citation impact scores, we calculated normalized scores for a subset of the publications based on data from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. Even if scores calculated with the help of GS and the WoS/Scopus are not identical for the different publication types (considered here), they are so similar that they result in the same assessment of the institute investigated in this study: For example, the institute's papers whose journals are covered in the WoS are cited at about an average rate (compared with the other papers in the journals).