引文与专家意见：《美国数学学会特色评论》的引文分析
Citations versus expert opinions: Citation analysis of Featured Reviews of the American Mathematical Society
摘要：
同行评议和引用指标是衡量科学研究价值的两种方法，但由于缺乏公开的同行评议数据，很难对这些方法进行比较。数学可以作为一个有用的实验室来考虑这些问题，因为作为一门精确的科学，引用的原因范围很窄。在数学方面，几乎所有发表的文章都是由数学家在Mathematical Reviews（MathSciNet）上发表后审查的，因此数据集基本上是1993年至2004年的Web of Science数学出版物。十年来，特别重要的文章被挑选出来的数学评论的特色评论。本研究以同行评议和引文计量两种方法对入选的优秀论文进行了计量分析。我们的结论是，作为一个特色的评论文章和被高度引用所描述的两个概念的意义是不同的。这表明同行评审和引用计数在很大程度上独立地确定了高度杰出的文章。我们还考虑子领域的招聘模式和数学家对子领域的兴趣是否反映了特色评论或高引用文章的子领域。我们重新检查数据从两个早期的研究中，我们的方法的影响同行评议/引用计数的关系，以多样性的学科。
英文摘要：
Peer review and citation metrics are two means of gauging the value of scientific research, but the lack of publicly available peer review data makes the comparison of these methods difficult. Mathematics can serve as a useful laboratory for considering these questions because as an exact science, there is a narrow range of reasons for citations. In mathematics, virtually all published articles are post-publication reviewed by mathematicians in Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet) and so the data set was essentially the Web of Science mathematics publications from 1993 to 2004. For a decade, especially important articles were singled out in Mathematical Reviews for featured reviews. In this study, we analyze the bibliometrics of elite articles selected by peer review and by citation count. We conclude that the two notions of significance described by being a featured review article and being highly cited are distinct. This indicates that peer review and citation counts give largely independent determinations of highly distinguished articles. We also consider whether hiring patterns of subfields and mathematicians' interest in subfields reflect subfields of featured review or highly cited articles. We reexamine data from two earlier studies in light of our methods for implications on the peer review/citation count relationship to a diversity of disciplines.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
