Authors:Giovanni Abramo and Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo
in research is effective and delivers public benefits.
Until recently, the conduct of these evaluation exercises has been founded on the so-called peer-review methodology, where research products submitted by institutions are evaluated by
Authors:Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, and Flavia Di Costa
problematic when it comes to what methods to apply. The recent development of bibliometric techniques has led various governments to introduce bibliometrics, where applicable, in support or substitution for more traditional peerreview. In the United Kingdom
Following the development of science almost from its origination, peerreview (Spier 2002a ) process influences the scientific paper publication (Grivell 2006 ; Gura 2002 ; Rocha 2001 ; Lawrence 2003 ) and
) makes scientific funding and journal space difficult to keep up with demand. Scientists face increased competition of funding and publication (Alberts et al. 2008 ).
The peer-review process is a turf battle with the final premium of the
Peerreview is quintessential in science (Benda and Engels 2011 ). Since almost all research articles published in journals undergo the peerreview process, it is an essential extension of the scientific process
Authors:Ludo Waltman, Nees Jan van Eck, Thed N. van Leeuwen, Martijn S. Visser, and Anthony F. J. van Raan
147 Dutch research groups in chemistry and studies how two bibliometric indicators, namely the h -index (Hirsch 2005 ) and the CPP/FCSm indicator, correlate with the quality judgment of a peerreview committee. Based on the data reported by Van Raan
Authors:Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco D’Angelo, and Fulvio Viel
In national research assessment exercises that take the peer review approach, research organizations are evaluated on the
basis of a subset of their scientific production. The dimension of the subset varies from nation to nation but is typically
set as a proportional function of the number of researchers employed at each research organization. However, scientific fertility
varies from discipline to discipline, meaning that the representativeness of such a subset also varies according to discipline.
The rankings resulting from the assessments could be quite sensitive to the size of the share of articles selected for evaluation.
The current work examines this issue, developing empirical evidence of variations in ranking due changes in the dimension
of the subset of products evaluated. The field of observation is represented by the scientific production from the hard sciences
of the entire Italian university system, from 2001 to 2003.
In a replication of the high-profile contribution by Wennerås and Wold on grant peer-review, we investigate new applications
processed by the medical research council in Sweden. Introducing a normalisation method for ranking applications that takes
into account the differences between committees, we also use a normalisation of bibliometric measures by field. Finally, we
perform a regression analysis with interaction effects. Our results indicate that female principal investigators (PIs) receive
a bonus of 10% on scores, in relation to their male colleagues. However, male and female PIs having a reviewer affiliation
collect an even higher bonus, approximately 15%. Nepotism seems to be a persistent problem in the Swedish grant peer review
lectures in this field and getting brilliant feedback by the participants, we decided to publish a paper discussing this topic in detail. The peer-review process: importance and reasons As the quality and validity of scientific manuscripts are some of the
Results of a study designed to investigate the peer review system at theDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft are presented. 242 applications for grants and 639 corresponding reviews were analysed to explore criteria actually used by peers in assessing the quality of proposals. The findings show a wide range of criteria used, an uneven distribution of positive and negative evaluation along these criteria, high inter-referee agreement and different degrees of impact of the evaluations on the overall recommendation.