IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v27y2018i3p246-261..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The peer-review process: The most valued dimensions according to the researcher’s scientific career

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth S Vieira
  • José A N F Gomes

Abstract

Scientific activities are being assessed permanently. The best well-known and well-established evaluation process is peer review. Peer-review-based systems may have different goals; therefore several guidelines are normally set to be followed by individual experts. Normally, the components to be evaluated are known to the whole interested community, but peers make use of their own criteria to evaluate the performance on these components, introducing subjectivity in the whole process. This article reports on an attempt to better understand the decisions of peer-review panels and the role that bibliometric analysis might play in supporting the evaluation of scientific merit in peer-review processes. A particular evaluation process for the national selection of junior and senior researchers is considered. The results show that the dimensions more highly valued by the peers differ depending on the applicant’s phase in the scientific career. For applicants with shorter careers, international collaboration appears to be the dimension more highly valued. In the case of applicants at an intermediate phase of the scientific career, the impact dimension showed to be the most relevant.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth S Vieira & José A N F Gomes, 2018. "The peer-review process: The most valued dimensions according to the researcher’s scientific career," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 246-261.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:3:p:246-261.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvy009
    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. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Emanuela Reale, 2019. "Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 537-554, 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:27:y:2018:i:3:p:246-261.. 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.