Table 1.
Respondent demographics.
Table 2.
Correlations between answers given for each question.
Fig 1.
Respondent evaluations and citations (2013) by paper.
The top panel shows the composite selections of our respondents for the question asking which papers they thought had the most citations (blue) and the actual number of citations in 2013 (gray). The other panels also include the number of citations (gray) along with: selections for most significant (green, middle left), selections for which should be shared with chemists (yellow, middle right), which should be shared widely (orange, bottom left), and h-index of the corresponding author (red, bottom right) for each of the manuscripts in the journal issue.
Fig 2.
Correlations between respondent choices and citations (2013).
The top panel is a graph plotting each papers number of actual citations (2013) versus the number of times it was chosen by our respondents for the question: ‘which three papers do you think have been cited most to-date’ (blue). The other panels also plot actual citations versus survey responses: most significant (green, middle left), shared with chemists (yellow, middle right), and shared widely (orange, bottom left). The number of actual citations versus the h-index of the corresponding author is shown in the bottom right panel (red).
Table 3.
Correlation between respondent choices and citation counts from 2013 and 2016.
Table 4.
Analysis of selections within and outside of respondents’ subdisciplines.
Fig 3.
Respondent selections of most cited by subdiscipline.
Each graph shows respondent selection for most cited (left axis, blue) and actual citations as of 2013 (right axis) for each paper. The top panel shows selections from all respondent subdisciplines. The middle panel shows selections where the respondent subdiscipline matches the article subdiscipline. The bottom panel shows selections where the respondent subdiscipline does not match the article subdiscipline.
Table 5.
Correlation of aggregate survey responses to 2013 citation counts.
Table 6.
Correlations between Mendeley inclusions or page views with citations and survey results.