Ricker Martin
Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Circuito Zona Deportiva, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 Ciudad de México, Mexico.
Scientometrics. 2017;111(3):1851-1855. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2374-2. Epub 2017 Apr 10.
It is argued that counting the total number of times a scientific article is cited by others, does neither result in a proxy for its cognitive impact nor for its quality. One would have to distinguish at least substitutable and fundamental references. A supposed correlation between peer review assessments and citation counts is conceptually problematic, because peer review includes objective as well as subjective considerations (convictions). With refined methods, however, a differential citation analysis might be able in the future to answer if a given article did or did not have positive cognitive impact on subsequent research.
有人认为，计算一篇科学文章被他人引用的总次数，既无法得出其认知影响力的代理指标，也无法得出其质量的代理指标。人们至少必须区分可替代参考文献和基本参考文献。同行评审评估与被引频次之间假定的相关性在概念上存在问题，因为同行评审既包括客观考量，也包括主观因素（信念）。然而，通过改进方法，差异引用分析未来或许能够回答某篇特定文章对后续研究是否产生了积极的认知影响。
