Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A letter on Ancaiani et al. ‘Evaluating scientific research in Italy: the 2004-10 research evaluation exercise’

      ,

      Research Evaluation

      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluating scientific research in Italy: The 2004–10 research evaluation exercise

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation vs informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise

               ,   (2016)
              During the Italian research assessment exercise, the national agency ANVUR performed an experiment to assess agreement between grades attributed to journal articles by informed peer review (IR) and by bibliometrics. A sample of articles was evaluated by using both methods and agreement was analyzed by weighted Cohen's kappas. ANVUR presented results as indicating an overall 'good' or 'more than adequate' agreement. This paper re-examines the experiment results according to the available statistical guidelines for interpreting kappa values, by showing that the degree of agreement, always in the range 0.09-0.42 has to be interpreted, for all research fields, as unacceptable, poor or, in a few cases, as, at most, fair. The only notable exception, confirmed also by a statistical meta-analysis, was a moderate agreement for economics and statistics (Area 13) and its sub-fields. We show that the experiment protocol adopted in Area 13 was substantially modified with respect to all the other research fields, to the point that results for economics and statistics have to be considered as fatally flawed. The evidence of a poor agreement supports the conclusion that IR and bibliometrics do not produce similar results, and that the adoption of both methods in the Italian research assessment possibly introduced systematic and unknown biases in its final results. The conclusion reached by ANVUR must be reversed: the available evidence does not justify at all the joint use of IR and bibliometrics within the same research assessment exercise.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Research Evaluation
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0958-2029
                1471-5449
                October 2017
                October 01 2017
                April 27 2017
                October 2017
                October 01 2017
                April 27 2017
                : 26
                : 4
                : 353-357
                Article
                10.1093/reseval/rvx013
                © 2017
                Product

                Comments

                Comment on this article