Comment to: Does China need to rethink its metrics- and citation-based research rewards policies?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Archambault, É., & Larivière, V. (2009). History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics, 79(3), 635–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286–291. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015a). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003–2019. doi:10.1002/asi.23309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015b). The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media: Large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 260–288. doi:10.1108/Ajim-12-2014-0173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cress, P. E. (2014). Using altmetrics and social media to supplement impact factor: Maximizing your article’s academic and societal impact. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 34(7), 1123–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research. doi:10.2196/jmir.2012.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fausto, S., Machado, F. A., Bento, L. F. J., Iamarino, A., Nahas, T. R., & Munger, D. S. (2012). Research blogging: Indexing and registering the change in science 2.0. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e50109. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lozano, G. A., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers’ citations in the digital age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2140–2145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2015). China statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Quan, W., Chen, B., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 1–18.

  13. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shu, F. (2017). M-score: An indicator quantifying individual’s scientific research output. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Wuhan, China.

  15. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017). Does China need to rethink its metrics- and citation-based research rewards policies? Scientometrics, 112(3), 1853–1857. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2430-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics, 97(2), 383–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fei Shu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shu, F. Comment to: Does China need to rethink its metrics- and citation-based research rewards policies?. Scientometrics 113, 1229–1231 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2504-x

Download citation