Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.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 papers that are in the top 10% and 20% most cited for each conference instance.The probability that a best paper will receive more citations than a non best paper is 0.72 (95% CI = 0.66, 0.77) for the Scopus data, and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.74, 0.81) for the Scholar data. There are no significant changes in the probabilities for different years. Also, 51% of the best papers are among the top 10% most cited papers in each conference/year, and 64% of them are among the top 20% most cited.There is strong evidence that the selection of best papers in Computer Science conferences is better than a random selection, and that a significant number of the best papers are among the top cited papers in the conference.

SUBMITTER: Wainer J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4366404 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Wainer Jacques J Eckmann Michael M Rocha Anderson A

PloS one 20150319 3

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 con ...[more]

PMID: 25789480

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPerceived difficulties in initiating insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) may prevent many general practitioners (GPs) from using insulin even when recommended in guidelines. This paper describes a Royal Australian College of General Practitioners accredited education program on starting insulin in T2D, and its impact on GPs' attitudes and behavior.MethodsA faculty comprising GPs with diabetes expertise, Credentialed Diabetes Nurse Educators, and endocrinologist developed and implemented the education program. The program content was highly procedure focussed, emphasizing simple, best-practice processes for starting insulin therapy and focussing on multidisciplinary models of care. The highly interactive format of the workshops included peer-to-peer learning, in which education was led by diabetes-experienced GP educators, as well as case study-based approaches and small group discussions. GP attendees were asked to rate their individual confidence and attitudes at the beginning and end of the meeting. In addition, participants (n = 220) from two workshops in 2013 were sent a survey 3 months after the meeting to gauge the longer-term impact on their clinical practice.ResultsSince 2008, more than 2500 GPs have attended the workshops, and report substantial improvements in confidence; after attending, more GPs were willing to start insulin within their practice. Evaluations at 3 months post-meeting indicate that the increased confidence was associated with behavioral changes in the subgroup evaluated at this time (n = 48). Success of this program was attributed to peer-to-peer education, multidisciplinary input, easily implemented best practice procedures and checklists for starting insulin, and constant adjustment of meeting process and content based on feedback and guideline changes.ConclusionA peer-to-peer, interactive GP education program reduced GPs' perceptions of the difficulties of starting insulin in T2D and achieved changes in attendees' clinical practice. This education program offers an effective approach to overcome the therapeutic inertia that is too common in diabetes management.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets