excellent papers

Francis Narin narinf at COX.NET
Mon Jan 27 15:57:38 EST 2014


     We started using "top decile" as a citation metric in our work for 
NIH in the late 1980's, but used it mainly in reports to NIH, not in 

     However, one rather obscure but published paper, referenced below, 
showed that papers associated with important Cancer advances were far 
more highly cited than average compared to controls - typically, 40-60% 
of the paper associated with the key advances were in the top deciles of 
cited papers.

     “The Impact of Different Modes of Research Funding”,Francis Narin, 
In “The Evaluation of Scientific Research”, CIBA Foundation Conference, 
John Wiley Publishers, 120-140, 1989.

     I can scan a copy of the paper for you, if you like.

         Francis Narin ( narinf at cox.net)

On 1/27/2014 12:36 AM, Bornmann, Lutz wrote:
>   How are excellent (highly cited) papers defined in bibliometrics? A
>   quantitative analysis of the literature
> Lutz Bornmann <http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Bornmann_L/0/1/0/all/0/1>
> (Submitted on 22 Jan 2014)
> As the subject of research excellence has received increasing 
> attention (in science policy) over the last few decades, increasing 
> numbers of bibliometric studies have been published dealing with 
> excellent papers. However, many different methods have been used in 
> these studies to identify excellent papers. The present quantitative 
> analysis of the literature has been carried out in order to acquire an 
> overview of these methods and an indication of an "average" or "most 
> frequent" bibliometric practice. The search in the Web of Science 
> yielded 321 papers dealing with "highly cited", "most cited", "top 
> cited" and "most frequently cited". Of the 321 papers, 16 could not be 
> used in this study. In around 80% of the papers analyzed in this 
> study, a quantitative definition has been provided with which to 
> identify excellent papers. With definitions which relate to an 
> absolute number, either a certain number of top cited papers (58%) or 
> papers with a minimum number of citations are selected (17%). Around 
> 23% worked with percentile rank classes. Over these papers, there is 
> an arithmetic average of the top 7.6% (arithmetic average) or of the 
> top 3% (median). The top 1% is used most frequently in the papers, 
> followed by the top 10%. With the thresholds presented in this study, 
> in future, it will be possible to identify excellent papers based on 
> an "average" or "most frequent" practice among bibliometricians.
> Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5986
> ---------------------------------------
> Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann
> Division for Science and Innovation Studies
> Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society
> Hofgartenstr. 8
> 80539 Munich
> Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265
> Mobil: +49 170 9183667
> Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de <mailto:bornmann at gv.mpg.de>
> WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de <http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/>
> ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008
> ResearchGate: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lutz_Bornmann

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20140127/4346346c/attachment.html>

More information about the SIGMETRICS mailing list