IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v34y2025iprvaf043..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer review research assessment: are the reviewers really experts?

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanni Abramo
  • Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo

Abstract

Peer review is a cornerstone of research evaluation, yet its credibility depends critically on the expertise of those conducting it, a condition too often assumed rather than verified. This study investigates the actual expertise of reviewers involved in Italy’s national research assessment exercise (VQR 2020(VQR-2024)). We analyze the disciplinary alignment between reviewers and submissions, as well as reviewers’ scientific performance, measured via a normalized ten-year citation impact indicator. Results reveal considerable variability in reviewer expertise and workload across fields, with some disciplinary sectors markedly underserved. Nearly half of the reviewers belong to the top 30% of national research performance, but a significant minority score below the median. Reviewers appointed by the evaluation agency (ANVUR) tend to outperform those selected by lottery, though both groups include cases of inadequate expertise. These findings challenge the assumption that peer reviewers in national evaluations are consistently qualified and call for more rigorous, transparent, and performance-informed selection processes to safeguard the integrity and credibility of peer review at scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2025. "Peer review research assessment: are the reviewers really experts?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 1-043..
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf043.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaf043
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf043.. 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.