Abstract
National research assessment exercises are becoming regular events in ever more countries. The present work contrasts the peer-review and bibliometrics approaches in the conduct of these exercises. The comparison is conducted in terms of the essential parameters of any measurement system: accuracy, robustness, validity, functionality, time and costs. Empirical evidence shows that for the natural and formal sciences, the bibliometric methodology is by far preferable to peer-review. Setting up national databases of publications by individual authors, derived from Web of Science or Scopus databases, would allow much better, cheaper and more frequent national research assessments.
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
Abramo, G, D'Angelo, CA 2011 National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level. Scientometrics 86 2 347–364 .
-
Abramo, G, D'Angelo, CA, Pugini, F 2008 The measurement of Italian Universities’ research productivity by a non parametric-bibliometric methodology. Scientometrics 76 2 225–244 .
-
Abramo, G, D'Angelo, CA, Caprasecca, A 2009 Allocative efficiency in public research funding: can bibliometrics help?. Research Policy 38 1 206–215 .
-
Abramo, G, D'Angelo, CA, Viel, F 2010 Peer review research assessment: a sensitivity analysis of performance rankings to the share of research product evaluated. Scientometrics 85 3 705–720 .
-
Adams, J, Griliches, Z 1998 Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales d'economie et de statistique 4950:127–162.
-
Aksnes, DW 2008 When different persons have an identical author name. How frequent are homonyms?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 5 838–841 .
-
Aksnes, DW, Taxt, RE 2004 Peers reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at Norvegian University. Research Evaluation 13 1 33–41 .
-
Butler, L, McAllister, I 2007 Metrics or peer review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research assessment exercise in political science. Political Studies Review 7:3–17 .
-
D'Angelo, CA, Giuffrida, C, Abramo, G 2011 A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in large-scale bibliometric databases. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 2 257–269 .
-
Garfield, E 1980 Premature discovery or delayed recognition—Why?. Current Contents 21:5–10.
-
Glanzel, W., 2008. Seven myths in bibliometrics. About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. In Kretschmer & F. Havemann (eds.), Proceedings of WIS Fourth international conference on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics and ninth COLLNET meeting, Berlin.
-
Harman, G 2000 Allocating research infrastructure grants in post-binary higher education systems: British and Australian approaches. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 22 2 111–126 .
-
Horrobin, DF 1990 The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 10 1438–1441 .
-
Lach, S., & Schankerman, M., 2003. Incentives and invention in universities, National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 9727. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1158310.
-
Moed, HF 2005 Citation analysis in research evaluation Springer Dordrecht.
-
Moxham, H., Anderson, J., 1992. Peer review. A view from the inside. Science and Technology Policy, 7–15.
-
Oppenheim, C 1997 The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy and archaeology. Journal of Documentation 53 5 477–487 .
-
Oppenheim, C, Norris, M 2003 Citation counts and the research assessment exercise V: archaeology and the 2001 RAE. Journal of Documentation 56 6 709–730.
-
Pendlebury, DA 2009 The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Scientometrics 57 1 1–11.
-
REF (Research Excellence Framework). 2009. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_38/#exec. Accessed 21 Jan 2011.
-
Rinia, EJ Th N van Leeuwen HG van Vuren AFJ van Raan 1998 Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria, evaluation of condensed matter physics in The Netherlands. Research Policy 27:95–107 .
-
AFJ van Raan 2008 Scaling rules in the science system: influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 4 565–576 .
Monthly Content Usage
| Abstract Views | Full Text Views | PDF Downloads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 2020 | 8 | 2 | 0 |
| Oct 2020 | 20 | 2 | 2 |
| Nov 2020 | 13 | 3 | 0 |
| Dec 2020 | 10 | 1 | 0 |
| Jan 2021 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 2021 | 11 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó
AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Powered by PubFactory