标题： 通过同行评估验证（高级）文献计量指标：一项使用InCites和F1000数据的比较研究 显示英文标题

标题： The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000

摘要： F1000的数据为我们提供了一个独特的机会，在一个广泛且全面的数据集上，研究同行评价与文献计量指标之间的关系，该数据集具有高质量的评价。 F1000是生物医学文献的发表后同行评审系统。 将指标与同行评价进行比较已被广泛认为是一种验证指标的方法。 基于InCites提供的七个指标，我们分析了原始引用次数（被引次数，第二代引用次数，每篇引用文献的第二代引用次数），标准化指标（期刊实际/预期引用次数，学科实际/预期引用次数，学科领域百分位数），以及基于期刊的指标（期刊影响因子）。 数据集包括 125篇2008年发表的属于细胞生物学或免疫学学科类别的论文。 如结果所示，学科领域百分位数与F1000评价的相关性最高；我们可以断言，对于另外三个指标（被引次数，第二代引用次数，学科实际/预期引用次数），与评价的“真实”相关性至少达到中等效应量。 显示英文摘要

摘要： The data of F1000 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.