IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ssa/lemwps/2015-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When the Brightest are not the Best

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Valente

Abstract

Selection procedures for new recruits in research organizations, supposedly aiming at identifying the candidates with the highest potential, relies necessarily on indirect information concerning the quality of a researcher. It is safe to assume that this information is correlated to, but not coinciding with, the un-observable future con- tributions of the candidates to a position. We show that using exceedingly selective criteria operating on observable proxy indicators of research quality may hinder the overall goal to ensure the highest expected research quality in the hiring organization. The paper presents a simple abstract model showing how pursuing the absolute best is a strategy very likely to produce results worse than alternative approaches, humbly aiming at identifying the good.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Valente, 2015. "When the Brightest are not the Best," LEM Papers Series 2015/13, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    • Handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2015/13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2015-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2015. "Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 451-466.
    2. Baccini, A. & Barabesi, L. & Marcheselli, M. & Pratelli, L., 2012. "Statistical inference on the h-index with an application to top-scientist performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 721-728.
    3. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bagues, Manuel & Sylos-Labini, Mauro & Zinovyeva, Natalia, 2019. "A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 462-477.
    2. V. A. Traag & L. Waltman, 2019. "Systematic analysis of agreement between metrics and peer review in the UK REF," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Richard McManus & Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2022. "Measuring research excellence amongst economics lecturers in the UK," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 386-404, April.
    4. Alberto Baccini & Lucio Barabesi & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2020. "On the agreement between bibliometrics and peer review: Evidence from the Italian research assessment exercises," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-28, November.
    5. Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela Anna & Torrini, Roberto, 2017. "Gender effects in research evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 911-924.
    6. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2014. "Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 89-97.
    7. Gibson, Elizabeth & Daim, Tugrul U. & Dabic, Marina, 2019. "Evaluating university industry collaborative research centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 181-202.
    8. Frederik T. Verleysen & Tim C.E. Engels, 2013. "A label for peer-reviewed books," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 428-430, February.
    9. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    10. David I Stern, 2014. "High-Ranked Social Science Journal Articles Can Be Identified from Early Citation Information," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-11, November.
    11. Mohamed Boufarss & Mikael Laakso, 2020. "Open Sesame? Open access priorities, incentives, and policies among higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1553-1577, August.
    12. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    13. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Ashley Ball, 2021. "Fifteen Years of a PBRFS in New Zealand: Incentives and Outcomes," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(2), pages 208-230, June.
    14. Karacic, Domagoj & Miskulin, Ivan & Serdarusic, Hrvoje, 2016. "State Investment In Science And Scientific Productivity Of Universities," UTMS Journal of Economics, University of Tourism and Management, Skopje, Macedonia, vol. 7(1), pages 37-48.
    15. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    16. Erich Battistin & Marco Ovidi, 2022. "Rising Stars: Expert Reviews and Reputational Yardsticks in the Research Excellence Framework," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(356), pages 830-848, October.
    17. Degl’Innocenti, Marta & Matousek, Roman & Tzeremes, Nickolaos G., 2019. "The interconnections of academic research and universities’ “third mission”: Evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    18. Zacchia, Giulia, 2016. "Segregation or homologation? Gender differences in recent Italian economic thought," MPRA Paper 72279, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Чернова Е. Г. & Ахобадзе Т. Д. & Малова А. С. & Салтан А. А., 2017. "Модели Финансирования Высшего Образования И Эффективность Деятельности Университетов Эмпирическое Исследование Европейского Опыта И Отечественная Практика," Вопросы образования // Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 3, pages 37-82.
    20. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2016. "Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1651-1671, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Simulation models; Research assessment; Management of academic institutions;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ssa:lemwps:2015/13. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/labssit.html .

    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.