Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy
AbstractA relevant question for the organization of large scale research assessments is whether bibliometric evaluation and informed peer review where reviewers know where the work was published, yield similar results. It would suggest, for instance, that less costly bibliometric evaluation might - at least partly - replace informed peer review, or that bibliometric evaluation could reliably monitor research in between assessment exercises. We draw on our experience of evaluating Italian research in Economics, Business and Statistics, where almost 12,000 publications dated 2004-2010 were assessed. A random sample from the available population of journal articles shows that informed peer review and bibliometric analysis produce similar evaluations of the same set of papers. Whether because of independent convergence in assessment, or the influence of bibliometric information on the community of reviewers, the implication for the organization of these exercises is that these two approaches are substitutes.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in its series IZA Discussion Papers with number 7739.
Length: 39 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2013
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: IZA, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 228 3894 223
Fax: +49 228 3894 180
Web page: http://www.iza.org
Postal: IZA, Margard Ody, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany
Other versions of this item:
- Graziella Bertocchi & Alfonso Gambardella & Tullio Jappelli & Carmela A. Nappi & Franco Peracchi, 2013. "Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy," CSEF Working Papers 344, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
- Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2013. "Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy," CEPR Discussion Papers 9724, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Graziella Bertocchi & Alfonso Gambardella & Tullio Jappelli & Carmela A. Nappi & Franco Peracchi, 2013. "Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy," Center for Economic Research (RECent) 093, University of Modena and Reggio E., Dept. of Economics.
- I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
- C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General
- O30 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
- Dimitrios Christelis, 2011. "Imputation of Missing Data in Waves 1 and 2 of SHARE," CSEF Working Papers 278, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
- David I. Stern, 2013.
"Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors,"
Journal of Economic Literature,
American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 173-89, March.
- David I. Stern, 2013. "Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors," Crawford School Research Papers 1302, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
- Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013.
"How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages F255-F278, 08.
- Sgroi, Daniel & Oswald, Andrew J., 2012. "How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave?," IZA Discussion Papers 7024, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Sgroi, Daniel & Oswald, Andrew J., 2012. "How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave?," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 999, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Francesco Bartolucci & Valentino Dardanoni & Franco Peracchi, 2013. "Ranking Scientific Journals via Latent Class Models for Polytomous Item Response," EIEF Working Papers Series 1313, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance (EIEF), revised May 2013.
- Pierre-Philippe Combes & Laurent Linnemer, 2010. "Inferring Missing Citations: A Quantitative Multi-Criteria Ranking of all Journals in Economics," Working Papers halshs-00520325, HAL.
- Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
- Ornella Wanda Maietta, 2014. "Innovation Systems Research in the Italian Food Industry," CSEF Working Papers 358, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark Fallak).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.