Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comment to: Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. The second section of BD summarizes the rules of the VQR. A similar description is already available for an international readership in Sects. 2 and 3 of Ancaiani et al. (2015). In the third and fourth sections BD claim that the value of kappa for Area 13 (0.54) is statistically different (and higher) from other areas. This statistical difference is already apparent from Table 5 in Cicero et al. (2013), which displays confidence intervals for kappa. Cicero et al. (2013) and Ancaiani et al. (2015) report additional results—that BD have chosen to ignore—based on a test for systematic bias between bibliometric analysis and peer review.

References

  • Ancaiani, A., Anfossi, A. F., Barbara, A., Benedetto, S., Blasi, B., Carletti, V., et al. (2015). Evaluating scientific research in Italy: The 2004–10 research evaluation exercise. Research Evaluation, 24(3), 242–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baccini, A. (2014). La VQR di Area 13: una riflessione di sintesi. Statistica & Società, 3(3), 32–37.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Baccini, A., & De Nicolao, G. (2016). Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise. Scientometrics,. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1929-y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertocchi, G., Gambardella, A., Jappelli, T., Nappi, C. A., & Peracchi, F. (2015). Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 44(2), 451–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicero, T., Malgarini, M., Nappi, C. A., & Peracchi, F. (2013). Bibliometric and peer review methods for research evaluation: A methodological appraisement (in Italian). MPRA Paper No. 50470, available online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/50470/ (Munich Personal REPEC Archive).

  • Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università di Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

    Graziella Bertocchi

  2. Università Bocconi, Milan, Italy

    Alfonso Gambardella

  3. Università di Napoli Federico II, Naples, Italy

    Tullio Jappelli

  4. ANVUR, Rome, Italy

    Carmela Anna Nappi

  5. Università di Roma Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

    Franco Peracchi

Authors
  1. Graziella Bertocchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alfonso Gambardella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tullio Jappelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carmela Anna Nappi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Franco Peracchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tullio Jappelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bertocchi, G., Gambardella, A., Jappelli, T. et al. Comment to: Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise. Scientometrics 108, 349–353 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1965-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1965-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation