title: Peer-selected "best papers"-are they really that "good"?
abstract: Peer evaluation is the cornerstone of science evaluation. In this paper, we analyze whether or not a form of peer evaluation, the pre-publication selection of the best papers in Computer Science (CS) conferences, is better than random, when considering future citations received by the papers.
  
  
  
  Considering 12 conferences (for several years), we collected the citation counts from Scopus for both the best papers and the non-best papers. For a different set of 17 conferences, we collected the data from Google Scholar. For each data set, we computed the proportion of cases whereby the best paper has more citations. We also compare this proportion for years before 2010 and after to evaluate if there is a propaganda effect. Finally, we count the proportion of best papers that are in the top 10% and 20% most cited for each conference instance.
  
  
  
  The probability that a best paper will receive more citations than a non best paper is 0.72 (95% CI = 0.66, 0.77) for the Scopus data, and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.74, 0.81) for the Scholar data. There are no significant changes in the probabilities for different years. Also, 51% of the best papers are among the top 10% most cited papers in each conference/year, and 64% of them are among the top 20% most cited.
  
  
  
  There is strong evidence that the selection of best papers in Computer Science conferences is better than a random selection, and that a significant number of the best papers are among the top cited papers in the conference.
authors: Computing Institute, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
authors: Jacques
authors: J
authors: Wainer
authors: Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, United States of America.
authors: Michael
authors: M
authors: Eckmann
authors: Computing Institute, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
authors: Anderson
authors: A
authors: Rocha
mesh_terms: D015706:Bibliometrics; D035081:Editorial Policies; D007254:Information Science; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000592:standards*