arXiv (All)
open access
The illusion of neutrality in metric-based research evaluation
Venue prestige and citation counts are two widely used, albeit imperfect, signals of research quality. When the two signals conflict, evaluators must decide how much weight to assign each. Yet, it remains unknown how researchers across disciplines trade off these two signals when evaluating research
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Domination in Graph Theory: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends, Collaboration, and Citation Networks#714914
- Frontier Lag: A Bibliometric Audit of Capability Misrepresentation in Academic AI Evaluation#1077886
- From Citations to Contributions: LLM-Assisted Credit Scoring of Research Articles#984580
- LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform#1129367
- From Rubrics to Reliable Scores: Evidence-Grounded Text Evaluation with LLM Judges#987553
Record · ID 1050645
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive