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

被引：54

作者：

Ancaiani, Alessio ^{[1
]}

Anfossi, Alberto F. ^{[1
,2
]}

Barbara, Anna ^{[1
,3
]}

Benedetto, Sergio ^{[1
]}

Blasi, Brigida ^{[1
]}

Carletti, Valentina ^{[1
]}

Cicero, Tindaro ^{[1
]}

Ciolfi, Alberto ^{[1
]}

Costa, Filippo ^{[1
,4
]}

Colizza, Giovanna ^{[1
]}

Costantini, Marco ^{[1
,3
]}

di Cristina, Fabio ^{[1
]}

Ferrara, Antonio ^{[1
]}

Lacatena, Rosa M. ^{[1
]}

Malgarini, Marco ^{[1
]}

Mazzotta, Irene ^{[1
]}

Nappi, Carmela A. ^{[1
]}

Romagnosi, Sandra ^{[1
]}

Sileoni, Serena ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Agenzia Nazl Valutaz Sistema Univ & Ric ANVUR, I-00153 Rome, Italy

[2] Compagnia San Paolo Sistema Torino, IT-10138 Turin, Italy

[3] Gabriele DAnnunzio Chieti Pescara Univ, I-66013 Chieti, Italy

[4] Univ Pisa, Dept Informat Engn, I-56122 Pisa, Italy

来源：

RESEARCH EVALUATION | 2015年 / 24卷 / 03期

关键词：

research assessment; bibliometrics; peer review; Italy; SCIENCE; SIZE; AGREEMENT;

D O I：

10.1093/reseval/rvv008

中图分类号：

G25 [图书馆学、图书馆事业]; G35 [情报学、情报工作];

学科分类号：

1205 ; 120501 ;

摘要：

The Italian Research Evaluation assessment for the period 2004-10 (VQR 2004-10) has analyzed almost 185,000 articles, books, patents, and other scientific outcomes submitted for evaluation by Italian universities and other public research bodies. This article describes the main features of this exercise, introducing its legal framework and the criteria used for evaluation. The innovative methodology that has been used for evaluation, based on a combination of peer review and bibliometric methods, is discussed and indicators for assessing the quality of participating research bodies are derived accordingly. The article also presents the main results obtained at the University level, trying to understand the existing relationship among research quality and University characteristics such as location, dimension, age, scientific specialization, and funding.

引用

页码：242 / 255

页数：14

共 37 条

[1] Revisiting size effects in higher education research productivity [J].

Abramo, Giovanni ;

Cicero, Tindaro ;

D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea .

HIGHER EDUCATION, 2012, 63 (06) :701-717

[2] Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: could the latter ever be preferable? [J].

Abramo, Giovanni ;

D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea ;

Di Costa, Flavia .

SCIENTOMETRICS, 2010, 84 (03) :821-833

[3]

[Anonymous], EFFECT DEP SIZE QUAL

[4]

[Anonymous], CITATION ANAL RES EV

[5]

[Anonymous], 1993, EVALUATING RD IMPACT

[6]

[Anonymous], RES EVALUATION, DOI DOI 10.1093/REV/5.1.3

[7] Comparing of Science Bibliometric Statistics Obtained From the Web and Scopus [J].

Archambault, Eric ;

Campbell, David ;

Gingras, Yves ;

Lariviere, Vincent .

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2009, 60 (07) :1320-1326

[8]

Bakkalbassi N., 2006, BIOMEDICAL DIGITAL L, V3

[9] The UK Research Assessment Exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system [J].

Barker, Katharine .

RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2007, 16 (01) :3-12

[10] Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance [J].

Baxt, WG ;

Waeckerle, JF ;

Berlin, JA ;

Callaham, ML .

ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1998, 32 (03) :310-317

← 1 2 3 4 →