IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijbmjn/v13y2018i9p182.html

Italian Economics Departments’ Scientific Research Performance: Comparison between VQR and ASN Methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Gennaro Guida

Abstract

The aim of this article is to investigate whether there are important differences between the evaluation procedures adopted by the Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research in the evaluation of scientific research. The two procedures, one for the periodic exercise of the evaluation of scientific research activities and the other to verify the possession of the requisites necessary to be employed as a professor at a university, have different purposes and have been implemented with different evaluation approaches. Analysing sample data extracted from the well-known Scopus database, we replicate the assessment methodologies, obtaining some interesting results. The two procedures identify the same departments of excellence and draw similar rankings. The two evaluation criteria are not so far apart in the identification of the departments of excellence. Through the use of coloured maps, we then identify that the distribution of the departments of excellence in the national territory favours the northern regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Gennaro Guida, 2018. "Italian Economics Departments’ Scientific Research Performance: Comparison between VQR and ASN Methodologies," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(9), pages 182-182, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijbmjn:v:13:y:2018:i:9:p:182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/download/75810/42592
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/75810
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2011. "Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 499-514, June.
    2. Maxim Kotsemir & Sergey Shashnov, 2017. "Measuring, analysis and visualization of research capacity of university at the level of departments and staff members," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1659-1689, September.
    3. Thed N. Van Leeuwen & Henk F. Moed & Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Anthony F. J. Van Raan, 2001. "Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequencesfor international comparisons of national research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 335-346, April.
    4. Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2005. "Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 133-143, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Luigi Aldieri & Gennaro Guida & Maxim Kotsemir & Concetto Paolo Vinci, 2019. "An investigation of impact of research collaboration on academic performance in Italy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 2003-2040, July.

    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. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    2. Murat Perit Çakır & Cengiz Acartürk & Oğuzhan Alaşehir & Canan Çilingir, 2015. "A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 813-848, June.
    3. J. W. Fedderke, 2013. "The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessed against bibliometric indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 177-206, November.
    4. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2012. "A sensitivity analysis of research institutions’ productivity rankings to the time of citation observation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 298-306.
    5. Jan Schulz, 2016. "Using Monte Carlo simulations to assess the impact of author name disambiguation quality on different bibliometric analyses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1283-1298, June.
    6. Shibayama, Sotaro & Baba, Yasunori, 2015. "Impact-oriented science policies and scientific publication practices: The case of life sciences in Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 936-950.
    7. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2011. "National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 929-941, December.
    8. Rafols, Ismael & Stirling, Andy, 2020. "Designing indicators for opening up evaluation. Insights from research assessment," SocArXiv h2fxp, Center for Open Science.
    9. Gennaro Guida, 2018. "An Analysis of Scientific Research Performance in Italy: Evaluation Criteria and Public Funding," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(7), pages 1-45, July.
    10. Giovanni Abramo & Tindaro Cicero & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2013. "National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: the Italian case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 311-324, April.
    11. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2012. "A sensitivity analysis of researchers’ productivity rankings to the time of citation observation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 192-201.
    12. Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2012. "The evaluation of citation distributions," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 291-310, March.
    13. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2017. "Academic performance and institutional resources: a cross-country analysis of research universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 739-764, February.
    14. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Sandra Miguel & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2015. "What factors affect the visibility of Argentinean publications in humanities and social sciences in Scopus? Some evidence beyond the geographic realm of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 789-810, January.
    15. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo, 2015. "The VQR, Italy's second national research assessment: Methodological failures and ranking distortions," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2202-2214, November.
    16. Rabishankar Giri & Sabuj Kumar Chaudhuri, 2021. "Ranking journals through the lens of active visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2189-2208, March.
    17. Goodall, Amanda H., 2009. "Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1079-1092, September.
    18. repec:plo:pone00:0194805 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman, 2008. "World-wide university rankings: A Scandinavian approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(3), pages 391-408, March.
    20. Feng Li & Yong Yi & Xiaolong Guo & Wei Qi, 2012. "Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: based on a two-dimensional approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 531-542, February.
    21. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Marco Solazzi, 2010. "National research assessment exercises: a measure of the distortion of performance rankings when labor input is treated as uniform," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 605-619, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:ijbmjn:v:13:y:2018:i:9:p:182. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.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.