Peer review and bibliometric indicators of scientific performance: A comparison of cum laude doctorates with ordinary doctorates in physics

Abstract

Quality judgments of predominantly local senior scientists regarding the scientific performance of candidates for a doctorate degree in physics were compared to the non-local short-term and long-term impact of the work published by these candidates before and after graduation. It was hypothesized that publications of cum laude degree-holders (‘cumlaudes’), both shortly before and shortly after the award of the degree, would be higher cited both on the short and long run than publications of ‘ordinary’ degree-holders. Before graduation, cumlaudes were significantly more productive, as well as authors of more highly cited publications than ordinary doctorates. Publications authored by cumlaudes some years before their graduation received on the average more than twice as many citations as publications authored by non-cumlaudes. However, in particular for cumlaudes, productivity and impact decreased sharply in years after graduation. After graduation, cumlaudes continued to be more productive than non-cumlaudes, but the impact of their publications equalled those produced by non-cumlaudes. The results offer little evidence for the Matthew effect and the Ortega hypothesis, but support the validity of both peer review outcomes and bibliometric impact assessments of scientific performance.