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]
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.
|Date of creation:||06 Oct 2013|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
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)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.