IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/50470.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Metodi bibliometrici e revisione dei pari per la valutazione della ricerca: un confronto metodologico
[Bibliometric and peer review methods for research evaluation: a methodological appraisement]

Author

Listed:
  • Cicero, Tindaro
  • Malgarini, Marco
  • Nappi, Carmela Anna
  • Peracchi, Franco

Abstract

The Italian Research Evaluation exercise for the period 2004-2010 has analyzed almost 185,000 among articles, books, patents and other scientific products submitted by Italian Universities and other public research bodies. In most cases, scientific publications have been peer reviewed; however, in hard sciences, medicines, engineering and economics, bibliometric indicators have also been used. For those areas, we have extracted a representative sample of scientific products, equal to the 10% of the reference population of submitted products, to be evaluated both with peer review and biblometric methods. Our analysis shows that peer review and bibliometric evaluations exhibit a level of concordance higher than that observed among two different reviewers of the same article. In almost any scientific discipline, however, there is a systematic difference among peer and bibliometric evaluations: more specifically, bibliometric scores are on average significantly higher than those obtained with the peer review. Overall, our results obtained fully support the choice adopted in the Italian exercise of using both evaluation techniques in order to assess the quality of Italian research institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Cicero, Tindaro & Malgarini, Marco & Nappi, Carmela Anna & Peracchi, Franco, 2013. "Metodi bibliometrici e revisione dei pari per la valutazione della ricerca: un confronto metodologico
    [Bibliometric and peer review methods for research evaluation: a methodological appraisement]
    ," MPRA Paper 50470, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:50470
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/50470/1/MPRA_paper_50470.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2013. "The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 286-291.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Indicatori bibliometrici; revisione dei pari; valutazione della ricerca;

    JEL classification:

    • I20 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - General
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions

    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:pra:mprapa:50470. 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: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.