Peer review research assessment: A sensitivity analysis of performance rankings to the share of research product evaluated

Scientometrics

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 705-720

  Abramo, Giovanni ^a,b   D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea ^a   Viel, Fulvio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

^b CNR   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Italy; Peer review; Rankings; Research assessment exercise; Universities

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958511662     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0238-0     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Abramo, G., & D'Angelo, C. A. (2009). A decision support system for public research organizations participating in national research assessment exercises. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2095-2106.
2. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2008). Assessment of sectoral aggregation distortion in research productivity measurements. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 111-121.
3. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009). Allocative efficiency in public research funding: Can bibliometrics help? Research Policy, 38(1), 206-215.
4. DEST. (2007). Department of Education, Science and Training. Research quality framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia-RQF submission specifications. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
5. ERA. (2009). The Excellence in Research for Australia. Evaluation Guidelines for the 2009 ERA Trial. http://www. arc. gov. au/pdf/ERA_Eval_Guide. pdf (last accessed 5 November 2010).
6. Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277-304.
7. Hicks, D. (2009). Evolving regimes of multi-university research evaluation. Higher Education, 57, 393-404.
8. Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1438-1441.
9. Moxam, H., & Anderson, J. (1992). Peer review. A view from the inside. Science and Technology Policy, 5(1), 7-15.
10. NRC. (2009). US National Research Council. http://sites. nationalacademies. org/NRC/index. htm (last accessed 5 November 2010).
11. 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, 477-487.
12. 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.
13. PBRF. (2008). Performance-Based Research Fund - ANNUALREPORT 2008. http://www. tec. govt. nz/Documents/Publications/PBRF-AR-2008-for-web. pdf (last accessed 5 November 2010).
14. RAE. (2008). Research Assessment Exercise - 2008. Panel criteria and working methods. http://www. rae. ac. uk/pubs/2006/01/ (last accessed 5 November 2010).
15. REF. (2009). Report on the pilot exercise to develop bibliometric indicators for the Research Excellence Framework. http://www. hefce. ac. uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_39/ (last accessed 5 November 2010).
16. Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, Th. N., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (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.
17. VTR. (2006). Valutazione Triennale (2001-2003) della Ricerca italiana (italian Triennal Assessment Excercise). Risultati delle valutazioni dei Panel di Area. http://vtr2006. cineca. it/php5/vtr_ris_val_panel. php (last accessed 5 November 2010).