Search

In the evaluation of scientific publications' impact, the interplay between intrinsic quality and non-scientific factors remains a subject of debate. While peer review traditionally assesses quality, bibliometric techniques gauge scholarly impact. This study investigates the role of non-scientific attributes alongside quality scores from peer review in determining scholarly impact. Leveraging data from the first Italian Research Assessment Exercise (VTR 2001-2003) and Web of Science citations, we analyse the relationship between quality scores, non-scientific factors, and publication short- and long-term impact. Our findings shed light on the significance of non-scientific elements overlooked in peer review, offering policymakers and research management insights in choosing evaluation methodologies. Sections delve into the debate, identify non-scientific influences, detail methodologies, present results, and discuss implications.

Similar to how innovations often find success in fields other than their original domains, in this study we explore whether the same holds true for scientific discoveries. We investigate the flow of knowledge across scientific disciplines, focusing on connections between citing and cited publications. Specifically, we analyze the connections among cited publications from 2015 indexed in the Web of Science and their citing counterparts to measure rates of knowledge dissemination within and across different fields. Our study aims to address key research questions concerning the disparities between inter- and intra-domain knowledge dissemination rates, the correlation between knowledge dissemination types and scholarly impact, as well as the evolution of knowledge dissemination patterns over time. These findings deepen our understanding of knowledge flows and offer practical insights with significant implications for evaluative bibliometrics.