| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 523223 | Journal of Informetrics | 2013 | 6 Pages |
The data of F1000 and InCites provide us with the unique opportunity to investigate the relationship between peers’ ratings and bibliometric metrics on a broad and comprehensive data set with high-quality ratings. F1000 is a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature. The comparison of metrics with peer evaluation has been widely acknowledged as a way of validating metrics. Based on the seven indicators offered by InCites, we analyzed the validity of raw citation counts (Times Cited, 2nd Generation Citations, and 2nd Generation Citations per Citing Document), normalized indicators (Journal Actual/Expected Citations, Category Actual/Expected Citations, and Percentile in Subject Area), and a journal based indicator (Journal Impact Factor). The data set consists of 125 papers published in 2008 and belonging to the subject category cell biology or immunology. As the results show, Percentile in Subject Area achieves the highest correlation with F1000 ratings; we can assert that for further three other indicators (Times Cited, 2nd Generation Citations, and Category Actual/Expected Citations) the “true” correlation with the ratings reaches at least a medium effect size.
► The comparison of metrics with peer evaluation provides a way of validating metrics. ► F1000 is a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature. ► InCites provides a number of bibliometric metrics at the paper level. ► Percentile in Subject Area is correlated with F1000 higher than other metrics.
