  The data of F1000 provide us with the unique opportunity to investigate the
relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric metrics on a broad and
comprehensive data set with high-quality ratings. F1000 is a post-publication
peer review system of the biomedical literature. The comparison of metrics with
peer evaluation has been widely acknowledged as a way of validating metrics.
Based on the seven indicators offered by InCites, we analyzed the validity of
raw citation counts (Times Cited, 2nd Generation Citations, and 2nd Generation
Citations per Citing Document), normalized indicators (Journal Actual/Expected
Citations, Category Actual/Expected Citations, and Percentile in Subject Area),
and a journal based indicator (Journal Impact Factor). The data set consists of
125 papers published in 2008 and belonging to the subject category cell biology
or immunology. As the results show, Percentile in Subject Area achieves the
highest correlation with F1000 ratings; we can assert that for further three
other indicators (Times Cited, 2nd Generation Citations, and Category
Actual/Expected Citations) the 'true' correlation with the ratings reaches at
least a medium effect size.
