Peer Review and Quality
Simon M. Brocklehurst
smb at bioch.ox.ac.uk
Sun Jan 21 08:59:23 EST 1996
Alexander Berezin wrote:
> Of course, what is 'garbage' is somewhat subjective
> and disputable. The estimate I quoted ( 90 % ) is
> about the average. I happen to hear (and read) figures
> up to 95 %, even 99 % .
> The true judgement will, of course, be carried out by
> the posterity. But taken into account that half of all
> papers never cited at all and the remaining half is cited
> just once (usually as self-citation), the above estimate
> is not unplausible.
Your way of assessing the quality of a piece of work (based
on citation searches alone) is not sensible. Surely you must realize
that it is important to consider things like: originality; elegance of
experimental design; clarity and completeness of the explanation of
the work described; contribution it makes to the field; seriousness of any
flaws in the work.
The number of times a paper is cited is not trivially related to its
quality. Having said that, I am surprised by your statistics that indicate
half of all papers are never cited, and the other half are cited just once.
An unscientific "citation pole" for a few colleagues does not
support this claim.
| ,_ o Simon M. Brocklehurst,
| / //\, Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences, Department of Biochemistry,
| \>> | University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| \\, E-mail: smb at bioch.ox.ac.uk | WWW: http://www.ocms.ox.ac.uk/~smb/
More information about the Bioforum