IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mod/recent/093.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Graziella Bertocchi

    ()

  • Alfonso Gambardella

    ()

  • Tullio Jappelli

    ()

  • Carmela A. Nappi

    ()

  • Franco Peracchi

    ()

Abstract

A 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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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 "Marco Biagi".
    • Handle: RePEc:mod:recent:093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://155.185.68.2/campusone/web_dep/Recentpaper/recent-wp93.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moed, H. F. & Burger, W. J. M. & Frankfort, J. G. & Van Raan, A. F. J., 1985. "The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 131-149, June.
    2. Andrew J. Oswald, 2007. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision‐Makers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(293), pages 21-31, February.
    3. David I. Stern, 2013. "Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 173-189, March.
    4. Henk F Moed, 2007. "The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 575-583, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013. "How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 255-278, August.
    7. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    8. Diana Hicks & Jian Wang, 2011. "Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(2), pages 284-294, February.
    9. Fagerberg, Jan & Landström, Hans & Martin, Ben R., 2012. "Exploring the emerging knowledge base of ‘the knowledge society’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1121-1131.
    10. 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.
    11. Linda Butler, 2007. "Assessing university research: A plea for a balanced approach," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 565-574, October.
    12. Pierre-Philippe Combes & Laurent Linnemer, 2010. "Inferring Missing Citations: A Quantitative Multi-Criteria Ranking of all Journals in Economics," Working Papers halshs-00520325, HAL.
    13. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    14. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:2:p:462-477 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:spr:scient:v:113:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2508-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. José M. Merigó & Christian A. Cancino & Freddy Coronado & David Urbano, 2016. "Academic research in innovation: a country analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 559-593, August.
    4. Zacchia, Giulia, 2016. "Segregation or homologation? Gender differences in recent Italian economic thought," MPRA Paper 72279, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Stephan B. Bruns & David I. Stern, 2016. "Research assessment using early citation information," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 917-935, August.
    6. Francesco Bartolucci & Valentino Dardanoni & Franco Peracchi, 2015. "Ranking scientific journals via latent class models for polytomous item response data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 178(4), pages 1025-1049, October.
    7. Checchi, Daniele & Ciolfi, Alberto & De Fraja, Gianni & Mazzotta, Irene & Verzillo, Stefano, 2019. "Have you read this? An empirical comparison of the British REF peer review and the Italian VQR bibliometric algorithm," CEPR Discussion Papers 13521, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2016. "Citation-Capture Rates for Economics Journals: Do they Differ from Other Disciplines and Does it Matter?," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 35(1), pages 73-85, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe Nicolao, 2016. "Reply to the comment of Bertocchi et al," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1675-1684, September.
    11. 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.
    12. repec:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0233-x is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Maietta, Ornella Wanda, 2015. "Determinants of R&D University-Frim Collaboration and Its Impact on Innovation: a Perspective from the Italian Food and Drink Industry," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 225668, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. repec:spr:scient:v:114:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2580-y is not listed on IDEAS
    15. repec:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:5:p:911-924 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Battistin, Erich & Ovidi, Marco, 2017. "Rising Stars," IZA Discussion Papers 11198, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. 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.
    18. repec:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2351-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Haddawy, Peter & Hassan, Saeed-Ul & Asghar, Awais & Amin, Sarah, 2016. "A comprehensive examination of the relation of three citation-based journal metrics to expert judgment of journal quality," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 162-173.
    20. Graziella Bertocchi & Alfonso Gambardella & Tullio Jappelli & Carmela Anna Nappi & Franco Peracchi, 2016. "Comment to: Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 349-353, July.
    21. Lina M. Cortés & Andrés Mora-Valencia & Javier Perote, 2016. "The productivity of top researchers: a semi-nonparametric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 891-915, November.
    22. 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.
    23. Fernandes, Graca & Margarida, Lopes, 2017. "Research Evaluation, Bibliometric Indicators and Impact on Knowledge Development," MPRA Paper 86618, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    24. Maietta, Ornella Wanda, 2015. "Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1341-1359.
    25. repec:eee:infome:v:12:y:2018:i:3:p:590-597 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • 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, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    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:mod:recent:093. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/demodit.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.