IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v26y2017i4p358-360..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reply to the letter on Ancaiani et al. ‘Evaluating Scientific research in Italy: The 2004–10 research evaluation exercise’

Author

Listed:
  • Sergio Benedetto
  • Tindaro Cicero
  • Marco Malgarini
  • Carmen Nappi

Abstract

Baccini and De Nicolao (2017) provide some criticism on the results showed in Ancaiani et al (2015) concerning the Italian Evaluation exercise (VQR in the Italian acronym). In this reply we provide ample evidence that the issues raised do not weaken the main results previously presented in any substantial way.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergio Benedetto & Tindaro Cicero & Marco Malgarini & Carmen Nappi, 2017. "Reply to the letter on Ancaiani et al. ‘Evaluating Scientific research in Italy: The 2004–10 research evaluation exercise’," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 358-360.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:26:y:2017:i:4:p:358-360.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvx017
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Camil Demetrescu & Andrea Ribichini & Marco Schaerf, 2020. "Are Italian research assessment exercises size-biased?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 533-549, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:26:y:2017:i:4:p:358-360.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.