This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers, Research Evaluation, 12, 159-170. doi: 10.3152/147154403781776645.AksnesD. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers, ,12, 159-170. doi: 10.3152/147154403781776645.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Baeza-Yates, R., and Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern Information Retrieval (Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.: Boston, MAUnited States).Baeza-YatesR.Ribeiro-NetoB. (1999). (Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.: Boston. MA United States).Search in Google Scholar
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.BlümelC.SchniedermannA. (2020). Studying review articles in scientometrics and beyond: a research agenda..124. 711-728. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03431-7.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Colebunders, R., and Rousseau, R. (2013). On the Definition of a Review, and Does It Matter? ISSI 2013, 272-274.ColebundersR.RousseauR. (2013). On the Definition of a Review, and Does It Matter?2013, 272-274.Search in Google Scholar
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.DavisJ. J.GoadrichM. H. (2006). “.” In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning.233-240.Search in Google Scholar
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.DonnerP. (2017). Document type assignment accuracy in the journal citation index data of Web of Science., 113. 219-236. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2483-y.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Garfield, E. (1987). Reviewing Review Literature. Part 2. The Place of Reviews in the Scientific Literature, Current Comments, 117-122.GarfieldE. (1987). Reviewing Review Literature. Part 2. The Place of Reviews in the Scientific Literature, , 117-122.Search in Google Scholar
Garfield, E. (1994). Current Contents, 3-7. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays94.html.GarfieldE. (1994). ,3-7. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays94.html.Search in Google Scholar
Garfield, E. (1996). An old proposal for a new profession: Scientific reviewing, The Scientist, 10, 12-13.GarfieldE. (1996). An old proposal for a new profession: Scientific reviewing, ,10, 12-13.Search in Google Scholar
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.HarzingA. W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the Social Sciences?, ,94, 23-34. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0738-1.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
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.HayashiK.MiyairiN. (2013). “.” In 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, 1905-1907.Search in Google Scholar
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.HoM. H. C.LiuJ. S.ChangK. C. T. (2017). To include or not: the role of review papers in citation-based analysis, ,110, 65-76. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2158-0.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Ketcham, C. M., and Crawford, J. M. (2007). The impact of review articles, Laboratory Investigation, 87, 1174-1185. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3700688.KetchamC. M.CrawfordJ. M. (2007). The impact of review articles, ,87, 1174-1185. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3700688.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
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.LachanceC.PoirierS.LariviereV (2014). The Kiss of Death? The Effect of Being Cited in a Review on Subsequent Citations, ,65, 1501-1505. doi: 10.1002/asi.23166.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
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.LeiL.SunY. M. (2020). Should highly cited items be excluded in impact factor calculation? The effect of review articles on journal impact factor.. 122. 1697-1706. doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03338-y.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
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.McCulloughR. (2023). The Scopus Content Coverage Guide: A complete overview of the content coverage in Scopus and corresponding policies. In .https://blog.scopus.com/posts/the-scopus-content-coverage-guide-a-complete-overview-of-the-content-coverage-in-scopus-and.Search in Google Scholar
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.MirandaR.Garcia-CarpinteroE. (2018). Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in the most cited papers, ,12, 1015-1030. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.006.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
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.MoedH. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. ,4, 265-277. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
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.TeixeiraM. C.ThomazS. M.MichelanT. S.MormulR.MeurerT.FasolliJ. V. B.SilveiraM. J. (2013). Incorrect Citations Give Unfair Credit to Review Authors in Ecology Journals, ,8, e81871. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081871.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
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.WoS. (2023). ‘Web of Science All Databases Help-Document Types’, , Accessed 12/09/2023.https://webofscience.help.clarivate.com/en-us/Content/document-types.html.Search in Google Scholar
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.YeungA. W. K. (2019). Comparison between Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and publishers for mislabelled review papers, ,116, 1909-1914. doi: 10.18520/cs/v116/i11/1909-1914.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
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.ZhuM. M.ShenZ. S.ChenF. YYangL. Y (2022). The Influence of Review’s Document Type Marking on the Results of Research Evaluation, ,17, 59-67. doi: 10.15978/j.cnki.1673-5668.202205005.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar