1. Ziman J. Real science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
2. Marsh HW, Jayasinghe UW, Bond NW. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications-reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist. 2008;63:160–168. [PubMed]
3. Geisler E. The metrics of science and technology. Westport, CT, USA: Quorum Books; 2000.
4. Hemlin S. Research on research evaluations. Social Epistemology. 1996;10:209–250.
5. National Institutes of Health. Recommendations for change at the NIH's Center for Scientific Review: phase 1 report, panel on scientific boundaries for review. Bethesda, MD, USA: Center for Scientific Review (CSR); 2000.
6. Ross PF. The sciences' self-management: manuscript refereeing, peer review, and goals in science. Lincoln, MA, USA: The Ross Company; 1980.
7. Bornstein RF. The predictive validity of peer-review: a neglected issue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1991;14:138–139.
8. Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA. Chance and consensus in peer-review. Science. 1981;214:881–886. [PubMed] 9. Smith R. Problems with peer review and alternatives. British Medical Journal. 1988;296:774–777. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Harnad S. Open Access scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. In: Torres-Salinas D, Moed HF, editors. Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Madrid, Spain: Spanish Research Council (CSIC); 2007. pp. 27–33.
11. Cole S. Making science. Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press; 1992.
12. van Raan AFJ. For your citations only? Hot topics in bibliometric analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. 2005;3:50–62.
13. Garfield E. Highly cited authors. Scientist. 2002;16:10.
14. Jennings CG. Quality and value: the true purpose of peer review. 2006. What you can't measure, you can't manage: the need for quantitative indicators in peer review.
15. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation. 2008;64:45–80.
16. Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research. Citation statistics. 2008 A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS). Berlin, Germany: International Mathematical Union (IMU)
17. Lokker C, McKibbon KA, McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal. 2008;336:655–657. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18. Dewitt TW, Nicholson RS, Wilson MK. Science Citation Index and chemistry. Scientometrics. 1980;2:265–275.
19. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. Functional use of frequently and infrequently cited articles in citing publications. A content analysis of citations to articles with low and high citation counts. European Science Editing. 2008;34:35–38.
20. Evidence Ltd. The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions. London, UK: Universities UK; 2007.
21. Ledin A, Bornmann L, Gannon F, Wallon G. A persistent problem. Traditional gender roles hold back female scientists. EMBO Reports. 2007;8:982–987. [PubMed]
22. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. Selecting manuscripts for a high impact journal through peer review: a citation analysis of Communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2008;59:1841–1852.
23. Herbertz H. Does it pay to cooperate? A bibliometric case-study in molecular-biology. Scientometrics. 1995;33:117–122.
24. Leimu R, Koricheva J. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2005;20:28–32. [PubMed]
25. Aksnes DW. When different persons have an identical author name. How frequent are homonyms? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2008;59:838–841.
26. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 10. College Station, TX, USA: Stata Corporation; 2007.
27. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007;316:1036–1039. [PubMed]
28. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2007;58:1100–1107.
29. Daniel H-D. Guardians of science. Fairness and reliability of peer review. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH; 1993/2004. Published online 16 July 2004, Wiley Interscience, DOI: 10.1002/3527602208.
30. Long JS, Freese J. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX, USA: Stata Press, Stata Corporation; 2006.
31. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2000.
32. Chatterjee S, Hadi AS. Regression analysis by example. 4. ed. New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Interscience; 2006.
33. Hausman J, Hall BH, Griliches Z. Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents R and D relationship. Econometrica. 1984;52:909–938.
34. Hilbe JM. Negative binomial regression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
35. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
36. Jayasinghe UW. Peer review in the assessment and funding of research by the Australian Research Council. Greater Western Sydney, Australia: University of Western Sydney; 2003.
37. Johnson VE. Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105:11076–11080. [PubMed]
38. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. Convergent validation of peer review decisions using the h index: extent of and reasons for type I and type II errors. Journal of Informetrics. 2007;1:204–213.
39. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2005;102:16569–16572. [PubMed]
40. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2007;58:1381–1385.
41. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics. 2005;65:391–392.
42. Bornmann L, Wallon G, Ledin A. Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data. Research Evaluation. 2008;17:149–156.
43. Freeman R, Weinstein E, Marincola E, Rosenbaum J, Solomon F. Careers-competition and careers in biosciences. Science. 2001;294:2293–2294. [PubMed]
44. Thorngate W, Faregh N, Young M. Mining the archives: analyses of CIHR research grant applications. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Psychology Department, Carlton University; 2002.
45. Stehbens WE. Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review. Medical Hypotheses. 1999;52:31–36. [PubMed]
46. Hornbostel S, Böhmer S, Klingsporn B, Neufeld J, von Ins M. Funding of young scientist and scientific excellence. Scientometrics in press
47. Melin G, Danell R. The top eight percent: development of approved and rejected applicants for a prestigious grant in Sweden. Science and Public Policy. 2006;33:702–712.
48. van den Besselaar P, Leydesdorff L. Past performance as predictor of successful grant applications. 2007. A case study. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Rathenau Instituut SciSA rapport 0704.
49. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review – a citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants. Scientometrics. 2006;68:427–440.
50. Vinkler P. Relations of relative scientometric impact indicators. The relative publication strategy index. Scientometrics. 1997;40:163–169.
51. Vinkler P. Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics. 1986;10:157–177.
52. van Raan AFJ. Advanced bibliometric methods for the evaluation of universities. Scientometrics. 1999;45:417–423.
53. Neuhaus C, Daniel H-D. A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts. Scientometrics in press