IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v14y2005i3p207-215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

R&D evaluation in Italy: more needs to be done

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Silvani
  • Giorgio Sirilli
  • Fabrizio Tuzi

Abstract

The article analyses the R&D evaluation processes and procedures in Italian universities and public research agencies. It is argued that although recent changes introduced in the system represent a significant step forward, they are still insufficient to move from a bureaucratic to a more participatory approach. To improve the quality of R&D decision-making, it is suggested that evaluation should be carried out in a more participatory, pro-active and multi-target context. Furthermore, additional efforts should be made to promote an evaluation culture and the profession of evaluator in Italy; this would imply a significant increase of human and financial resources. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Silvani & Giorgio Sirilli & Fabrizio Tuzi, 2005. "R&D evaluation in Italy: more needs to be done," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 207-215, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:14:y:2005:i:3:p:207-215
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154405781776094
    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. Coccia, Mario, 2008. "Measuring scientific performance of public research units for strategic change," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 183-194.

    More about this item

    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:oup:rseval:v:14:y:2005:i:3:p:207-215. 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.