Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university

By Dag W. Aksnes, R. E. Taxt. 2004

187 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb27d0692a52dceb02b455ead2ffdb671a6353fa

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019, background): “Aksnes and Taxt (2004) analyzed the relationship between bibliometric indicators and the outcomes of a peer review of Norwegian research groups at a mathematical and natural science faculty, reporting positive but weak correlations.”
Algorithmic stemmers or morphological analysisq An evaluation (2009, background): “Aksnes and Taxt (2004) tested the application of relative indicators in a case study of research groups at the University of Bergen (Norway).”
Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences (2009, methodology): “Both peer review and the bibliometric assessment of performance have often been discussed and researched, and the two methods are often contrasted (Aksnes & Taxt 2004; Butler 2007, 2008; Charlton & Andras 2007; Donovan 2007; Moed 2007; Nightingale & Scott 2007).”
What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008, background): “…(e.g. Cole and Cole, 1972), and peer judgments (Smith and Eysenck, 2002; Cole, 1975; Crane, 1972; Lawani, 1986; Bornmann and Daniel, 2005; Daniel, 1993, 2004; Christensen-Szalanski and Beach, 1984; Simonton, 1992; Cole, 1989; Rinia et al., 1998;, e.g. Aksnes and Taxt, 2004; Lawani and Bayer, 1983).”
Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar (2007, background): “…reported the validity and reliability of citation counts in research assessments as well as the positive correlation between these counts and peer reviews and assessments of publication venues (Aksnes & Taxt, 2004; Glänzel, 1996; Kostoff, 1996; Martin, 1996; Narin, 1976; So, 1998; van Raan, 2000).”