National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings
arXiv:1811.01703 · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0459-x
Abstract
Development of bibliometric techniques has reached such a level as to suggest their integration or total substitution for classic peer review in the national research assessment exercises, as far as the hard sciences are concerned. In this work we compare rankings lists of universities captured by the first Italian evaluation exercise, through peer review, with the results of bibliometric simulations. The comparison shows the great differences between peer review and bibliometric rankings for excellence and productivity.
References in corpus (4)
- Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics
- A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments
- Allocative efficiency in public research funding:can bibliometrics help?
- Peer review research assessment: a sensitivity analysis of performance rankings to the share of research product evaluated
Cited by in corpus (7)
- Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement
- In which fields are citations indicators of research quality?
- The VQR, Italy's second national research assessment: Methodological failures and ranking distortions
- Peer review vs bibliometrics: which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?
- Using the Full-text Content of Academic Articles to Identify and Evaluate Algorithm Entities in the Domain of Natural Language Processing
- National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: the Italian case
- On tit for tat: Franceschini and Maisano versus ANVUR regarding the Italian research assessment exercise VQR 2011-2014