Peer review in research assessment and data analysis of Italian publications in SSD M-STO/08 (Archival science, bibliography, library science)

Author:

Morriello RossanaORCID

Abstract

Since the introduction of research assessment systems at institutional level in the 1980s, the ongoing debate on the roles and functions of peer review and bibliometrics has been vivid and lively. In the first part of the article, the main lines over time of this debate are traced, and a reflection on the epistemic functions of peer review and citations is proposed. In Italy, the first research assessment exercise (VTR) was based on peer review only, while the following ones (VQR) were based on different methods for bibliometric disciplines and non-bibliometric disciplines, namely bibliometric indicators and peer review. Starting from a data analysis on Italian publications, and using as a sample data from M-STO/08 (Archival science, bibliography and library science) area, the essay shows some trends and changes in publication habits in HSS. Conclusions open a perspective on revitalization of peer review as a solid qualitative method for research assessment.

Publisher

Firenze University Press

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications,Conservation

Reference46 articles.

1. Abramo, Giovanni. 2017. “Correspondence On tit for tat: Franceschini and Maisano versus ANVUR regarding the Italian research assessment exercise VQR 2011–2014”. Journal of Infometrics 11: 783-787.

2. Abramo, Giovanni, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, e Alessandro Caprasecca. 2009. “Allocative efficiency in public research funding: Can bibliometrics help?”. Research Policy 38: 206-215.

3. ANVUR (Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca). 2013. Rapporto finale sulla VQR 2004-2010. https://www.anvur.it/rapporto/.

4. ANVUR (Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca). 2018. Rapporto biennale sullo stato del sistema universitario e della ricerca. https://www.anvur.it/documenti-ufficiali/rapporti-sullo-stato/.

5. Baccini, Alberto, e Giuseppe De Nicolao. 2016. “Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise”. Scientometrics 108: 1651–1671.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3