Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of editorial material in bibliometric research performance assessments

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the possibilities to extend the basis for research performance exercises with editorial material are explored. While this document type has been traditionally not considered as an important type of scientific communication in research performance assessment procedures, there is a perception from researchers that editorial materials should be considered as relevant document types as important sources for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. In a number of these cases, some of the mentioned editorial materials are actually ‘highly cited’. This lead to a thorough scrutiny of editorials or editorial material over the period 1992–2001, for all citation indexes of Thomson Scientific. The relevance of editorial materials through three quantitative bibliometric characteristics of scientific publications, namely page length, number of references, and the number of received citations, are thoroughly analyzed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Campanario, J. M., Carretero, J., Marangon, V., Molina, A., & Ros, G. (2011). Effect on the journal impact factor of the number and document type of citing records: a wide-scale study. Scientometrics, 87, 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T.N., & Bordons, M. (2012). Referencing patterns of individual researchers: do top scientists rely on more extensive information sources? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, (in press).

  • Frandsen, T. F. (2008). On the ratio of citable versus non-citable items in economics journals. Scientometrics, 74, 439–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1987). Why are the impacts of the leading medical journals so similar ad yet so different? Item-by-item audits reveal a diversity of editorial material. Current Contents, 2, 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.W. (2010). Working with ISI data: Beware of categorisation problems. http://www.harzing.com/ISI_categories.htm. Accessed 13 Feb 2012.

  • Harzing, A.W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences? Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0738-1.

  • Lewison, G. (2009). The percentage of reviews in research output: a simple measure of research esteem. Research Evaluation, 18, 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R. (2009). The most influential editorials. In: Celebrating scholarly communication studies. A festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th birthday, (pp. 47–53).

  • Sigogneau, A. (2000). An analysis of document types published in journals related to physics: Proceeding papers recorded in the Science Citation Index database. Scientometrics, 47, 589–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2007). Modelling of bibliometric approaches and importance of output verification in research performance assessment. Research Evaluation, 16, 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., & Reedijk, J. (1999). Critical comments on Institute for Scientific Information impact factors: a sample of inorganic molecular chemistry journals. Journal of Information Science, 25(6), 489–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, T. N., van der Wurff, L. J., & de Craen, A. J. M. (2007). Classification of ‘research letters’ in general medical journals and its consequences in bibliometric research evaluation processes. Research Evaluation, 16(1), 59–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2011). Book reviews in humanities research evaluations. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 62, 1979–1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank their colleague Gunnar Sivertsen (NIFU, Norway) for his valuable comments and discussion during the progress of our research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Thed van Leeuwen, Rodrigo Costas, Clara Calero-Medina & Martijn Visser

Authors
  1. Thed van Leeuwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rodrigo Costas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clara Calero-Medina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martijn Visser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thed van Leeuwen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Leeuwen, T., Costas, R., Calero-Medina, C. et al. The role of editorial material in bibliometric research performance assessments. Scientometrics 95, 817–828 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0904-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0904-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation