Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorZhang, Lin
dc.contributor.authorRousseau, Ronald
dc.contributor.authorSivertsen, Gunnar
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-11T12:49:54Z
dc.date.available2017-05-11T12:49:54Z
dc.date.created2017-04-07T09:00:46Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2442306
dc.description.abstractThe scientific foundation for the criticism on the use of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in evaluations of individual researchers and their publications was laid between 1989 and 1997 in a series of articles by Per O. Seglen. His basic work has since influenced initiatives such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics, and The Metric Tide review on the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Seglen studied the publications of only 16 senior biomedical scientists. We investigate whether Seglen’s main findings still hold when using the same methods for a much larger group of Norwegian biomedical scientists with more than 18,000 publications. Our results support and add new insights to Seglen’s basic work.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.relation.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174205
dc.titleScience deserves to be judged by its contents, not by its wrapping: Revisiting Seglen's work on journal impact and research evaluationnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.source.volume12nb_NO
dc.source.journalPLoS ONEnb_NO
dc.source.issue3nb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0174205
dc.identifier.cristin1464259
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 256223nb_NO
cristin.unitcode7463,0,0,0
cristin.unitnameNIFU Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record