Peer-selected "best papers"-are they really that "good"?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Peer evaluation is the cornerstone of science evaluation. In this paper, we analyze whether or not a form of peer evaluation, the pre-publication selection of the best papers in Computer Science (CS) conferences, is better than random, when considering future citations received by the papers.

Methods

Considering 12 conferences (for several years), we collected the citation counts from Scopus for both the best papers and the non-best papers. For a different set of 17 conferences, we collected the data from Google Scholar. For each data set, we computed the proportion of cases whereby the best paper has more citations. We also compare this proportion for years before 2010 and after to evaluate if there is a propaganda effect. Finally, we count the proportion of best

SUBMITTER: Wainer J 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4366404 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature