Peer review and citation metrics are two means of gauging the value of scientific research, but the lack of publicly available peer review data makes the comparison of these methods difficult. Mathematics can serve as a useful laboratory for considering these questions because as an exact science, there is a narrow range of reasons for citations. In mathematics, virtually all published articles are post-publication reviewed by mathematicians in Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet) and so the data set was essentially the Web of Science mathematics publications from 1993 to 2004. For a decade, especially important articles were singled out in Mathematical Reviews for featured reviews. In this study, we analyze the bibliometrics of elite articles selected by peer review and by citation count. We conclude that the two notions of significance described by being a featured review article and being highly cited are distinct. This indicates that peer review and citation counts give largely independent determinations of highly distinguished articles. We also consider whether hiring patterns of subfields and mathematicians’ interest in subfields reflect subfields of featured review or highly cited articles. We re-examine data from two earlier studies in light of our methods for implications on the peer review/citation count relationship to a diversity of disciplines.

同行评议和引文度量是衡量科学研究价值的两种方法，但是缺乏公开可用的同行评议数据使这些方法的比较变得困难。数学可以作为考虑这些问题的有用实验室，因为作为一门精确的科学，引用的原因范围很窄。在数学中，几乎所有已发表的文章都是由数学家在《数学评论》（MathSciNet）上进行发表后审查的，因此，该数据集本质上是1993年至2004年间Web of Science数学出版物。针对特色评论的评论。在这项研究中，我们分析了通过同行评议和引用次数选择的精英文章的文献计量学。我们得出结论，作为特色评论文章和被高度引用而描述的两个重要概念是截然不同的。这表明同行评议和引用次数在很大程度上决定了杰出文章的独立性。我们还考虑子领域的聘用模式和数学家对子领域的兴趣是否反映了特色评论或被高引用文章的子领域。我们根据我们的方法重新检查了两项较早研究的数据，这些数据对同行评审/引文计数与多种学科之间的关系具有影响。我们还考虑子领域的聘用模式和数学家对子领域的兴趣是否反映了特色评论或被高引用文章的子领域。我们根据我们的方法重新检查了两项较早研究的数据，这些数据对同行评审/引文计数与多种学科之间的关系具有影响。我们还考虑子领域的聘用模式和数学家对子领域的兴趣是否反映了特色评论或被高引用文章的子领域。我们根据我们的方法重新检查了两项较早研究的数据，这些数据对同行评审/引文计数与多种学科之间的关系具有影响。