2017
DOI: 10.1038/544411a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
94
1
4

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 157 publications
(99 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
94
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…(Mobley et al, 1992, p. 128). However, they also point out the higher risk of failure (see also Stephan et al, (2017)).…”
Section: -Atypical Combinations Reflecting Novel Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…(Mobley et al, 1992, p. 128). However, they also point out the higher risk of failure (see also Stephan et al, (2017)).…”
Section: -Atypical Combinations Reflecting Novel Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…conceptualized interdisciplinarity in terms of both diversity and coherence. Analogously, others use the words "novelty" and "conventionality" (Uzzi et al, 2013;Schilling & Green, 2015;Stephan et al, 2017), or 'atypical' combinations, but which are limited in terms of accounting for balance. Leydesdorff & Rafols (2011, at p. 852) and Rafols, Leydesdorff, O'Hare, Nightingale, & Stirling (2012, at p. 1268) have proposed to operationalize coherence as follows:…”
Section: Disparity or Similaritymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To make things worse, criteria for evaluation are not universal either, and even if they were, they are plagued with vague, difficult to objectivize terms such as "scientific quality", "innovation" or "creativity" [47,48]. Contrary to the scientific practice itself, scientific evaluation methods are based on notoriously vague concepts and therefore lack impartiality, understanding impartiality as "the ability for any observer to recognize evidence as evidence and to see the bearing of evidence on theory in the same way" impact [24]. Our results suggest that these simple measurements of "scientific quality" have very limited predictive value of future performance once the top candidates have been preselected.…”
Section: Methods and Results For Details)mentioning
confidence: 99%