References
- Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers, Research Evaluation, 12, 159-170. doi: 10.3152/147154403781776645.
- Baeza-Yates, R., and Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern Information Retrieval (Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.: Boston, MAUnited States).
- Blümel, C., and Schniedermann, A. (2020). Studying review articles in scientometrics and beyond: a research agenda, Scientometrics, 124, 711-728. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03431-7.
- Colebunders, R., and Rousseau, R. (2013). On the Definition of a Review, and Does It Matter? ISSI 2013, 272-274.
- Davis, J. J., and Goadrich, M. H. (2006). “The relationship between Precision-Recall and ROC curves.” In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, 233-240.
- Donner, P. (2017). Document type assignment accuracy in the journal citation index data of Web of Science, Scientometrics, 113, 219-236. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2483-y.
- Garfield, E. (1987). Reviewing Review Literature. Part 2. The Place of Reviews in the Scientific Literature, Current Comments, 117-122.
- Garfield, E. (1994). Current Contents, 3-7. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays94.html.
- Garfield, E. (1996). An old proposal for a new profession: Scientific reviewing, The Scientist, 10, 12-13.
- Harzing, A. W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the Social Sciences?, Scientometrics, 94, 23-34. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0738-1.
- Hayashi, K., and Miyairi, N. (2013). “Comprehensiveness and accuracy of document types: Comparison in web of science and scopus against publisher’s definition.” In 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, 1905-1907.
- Ho, M. H. C., Liu, J. S., and Chang, K. C. T. (2017). To include or not: the role of review papers in citation-based analysis, Scientometrics, 110, 65-76. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2158-0.
- Ketcham, C. M., and Crawford, J. M. (2007). The impact of review articles, Laboratory Investigation, 87, 1174-1185. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3700688.
- Lachance, C., Poirier, S., and Lariviere, V. (2014). The Kiss of Death? The Effect of Being Cited in a Review on Subsequent Citations, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 1501-1505. doi: 10.1002/asi.23166.
- Lei, L., and Sun, Y. M. (2020). Should highly cited items be excluded in impact factor calculation? The effect of review articles on journal impact factor, Scientometrics, 122, 1697-1706. doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03338-y.
- McCullough, R. (2023). The Scopus Content Coverage Guide: A complete overview of the content coverage in Scopus and corresponding policies. In scopus. https://blog.scopus.com/posts/the-scopus-content-coverage-guide-a-complete-overview-of-the-content-coverage-in-scopus-and.
- Miranda, R., and Garcia-Carpintero, E. (2018). Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in the most cited papers, Journal of Informetrics, 12, 1015-1030. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.006.
- Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals, Journal of Informetrics, 4, 265-277. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002.
- Teixeira, M. C., Thomaz, S. M., Michelan, T. S., Mormul, R., Meurer, T., Fasolli, J. V. B., and Silveira, M. J. (2013). Incorrect Citations Give Unfair Credit to Review Authors in Ecology Journals, PloS One, 8, e81871. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081871.
- WoS. (2023). ‘Web of Science All Databases Help-Document Types’, Clarivate Analytics, Accessed 12/09/2023. https://webofscience.help.clarivate.com/en-us/Content/document-types.html.
- Yeung, A. W. K. (2019). Comparison between Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and publishers for mislabelled review papers, Current Science, 116, 1909-1914. doi: 10.18520/cs/v116/i11/1909-1914.
- Zhu, M. M., Shen, Z. S., Chen, F. Y., and Yang, L. Y. (2022). The Influence of Review’s Document Type Marking on the Results of Research Evaluation, Science Focus, 17, 59-67. doi: 10.15978/j.cnki.1673-5668.202205005.