Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy

Graziella Bertocchi (), Alfonso Gambardella, Tullio Jappelli (), Carmela A. Nappi and Franco Peracchi
Additional contact information
Alfonso Gambardella: Università Bocconi
Carmela A. Nappi: ANVUR

CSEF Working Papers from Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy

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 close substitutes.

Keywords: Research Assessment; Peer Review; Bibliometric Evaluation; VQR (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013-10-28
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-sog
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (14)

Published in Research Policy, 2015, vol. 44, March, 451-466

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.csef.it/WP/wp344.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy (2015)
Working Paper: Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy (2013)
Working Paper: Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy (2013)
Working Paper: Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy (2013)
Working Paper: Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy (2013)
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:sef:csefwp:344

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in CSEF Working Papers from Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Dr. Maria Carannante ().