In the context of academic publishing and peer review, this study investigates the relationship between post-publication expert evaluations, their agreement levels, and the subsequent scientific and public recognition of the reviewed research. Using expert statements from the Science Media Center Germany as a dataset, we analyze Research in Context reviews to examine the alignment between qualitative post-publication assessments and bibliometric as well as altmetric indicators. We employ a Large Language Model to translate unstructured expert reviews into a structured rating scheme. Furthermore, we correlate these evaluations with citation counts from the Web of Science and alternative impact metrics such as the Altmetric Attention Score, news mentions, and Mendeley readership statistics from the Altmetric Explorer. We investigate the alignment of positive or critical post-publication reviews and high or low citation or altmetric counts.

翻译：在学术出版与同行评审的背景下，本研究探讨了发表后专家评价、其一致性水平与被评研究后续获得的科学及公众认可度之间的关系。以德国科学媒介中心的专家声明为数据集，我们通过分析“研究背景”评审，考察了定性的发表后评估与文献计量及替代计量指标之间的匹配程度。我们采用大型语言模型将非结构化的专家评审转化为结构化评级方案。此外，我们将这些评价与来自Web of Science的引用次数以及替代影响力指标（如Altmetric关注度得分、新闻提及量和来自Altmetric Explorer的Mendeley读者统计）进行关联分析。我们重点探究了积极或批判性的发表后评审与高或低引用次数/替代计量数据之间的对应关系。