EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

The peer-review process: The most valued dimensions according to the researcher’s scientific career

Elizabeth S Vieira and José A N F Gomes

Research Evaluation, 2018, vol. 27, issue 3, 246-261

Abstract: Scientific activities are being assessed permanently. The best well-known and well-established evaluation process is peer review. Peer-review-based systems may have different goals; therefore several guidelines are normally set to be followed by individual experts. Normally, the components to be evaluated are known to the whole interested community, but peers make use of their own criteria to evaluate the performance on these components, introducing subjectivity in the whole process. This article reports on an attempt to better understand the decisions of peer-review panels and the role that bibliometric analysis might play in supporting the evaluation of scientific merit in peer-review processes. A particular evaluation process for the national selection of junior and senior researchers is considered. The results show that the dimensions more highly valued by the peers differ depending on the applicant’s phase in the scientific career. For applicants with shorter careers, international collaboration appears to be the dimension more highly valued. In the case of applicants at an intermediate phase of the scientific career, the impact dimension showed to be the most relevant.

Keywords: peer-review; bibliometric indicators; selection process; individual performance (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvy009 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:3:p:246-261.

Access Statistics for this article

Research Evaluation is currently edited by Julia Melkers, Emanuela Reale and Thed van Leeuwen

More articles in Research Evaluation from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:3:p:246-261.