IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i12d10.1007_s11192-022-04329-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How should evaluation be? Is a good evaluation of research also just? Towards the implementation of good evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Cinzia Daraio

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Alessio Vaccari

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

Abstract

In this paper we answer the question of how evaluation should be by proposing a good evaluation of research practices. A good evaluation of research practices, intended as social practices à la MacIntyre, should take into account the stable motivations and the traits of the characters (i.e. the virtues) of researchers. We also show that a good evaluation is also just, beyond the sense of fairness, as working on good research practices implies keep into account a broader sense of justice. After that, we propose the development of a knowledge base for the assessment of “good” evaluations of research practices to implement a questionnaire for the assessment of researchers’ virtues. Although the latter is a challenging task, the use of ontologies and taxonomic knowledge, and the reasoning algorithms that can draw inferences on the basis of such knowledge represents a way for testing the consistency of the information reported in the questionnaire and to analyse correctly and coherently how the data is gathered through it. Finally, we describe the potential application usefulness of our proposal for the reform of current research assessment systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2022. "How should evaluation be? Is a good evaluation of research also just? Towards the implementation of good evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7127-7146, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04329-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04329-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04329-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-022-04329-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2020. "Using normative ethics for building a good evaluation of research practices: towards the assessment of researcher’s virtues," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1053-1075, November.
    2. Shana Hormann, 2018. "Exploring Resilience: in the Face of Trauma," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 91-104, July.
    3. Ahmad, Ehtisham & Stern, Nicholas, 1983. "The Evaluation Of Personal Income Taxes In India," Discussion Papers 272818, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    4. John P. A. Ioannidis, 2011. "Fund people not projects," Nature, Nature, vol. 477(7366), pages 529-531, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2021. "How should evaluation be? Is a good evaluation of research also just? Towards the implementation of good evaluation," LEM Papers Series 2021/39, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    2. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    3. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2023. "A heuristic approach based on Leiden rankings to identify outliers: evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 483-510, January.
    4. Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2018. "The bibliometric quotient (BQ), or how to measure a researcher’s performance capacity: A Bayesian Poisson Rasch model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1282-1295.
    5. Taggart, Gabel & Zenor, Jen, 2022. "Evaluation as a moral practice: The case of virtue ethics," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    7. Krist Vaesen & Joel Katzav, 2017. "How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
    8. Daniel Mietchen, 2014. "The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-3, December.
    9. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    10. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    11. Kevin Gross & Carl T Bergstrom, 2019. "Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-15, January.
    12. Vanessa Schäffner, 2021. "Between Real World and Thought Experiment: Framing Moral Decision-Making in Self-Driving Car Dilemmas," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 249-272, July.
    13. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2020. "Using normative ethics for building a good evaluation of research practices: towards the assessment of researcher’s virtues," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1053-1075, November.
    14. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    15. Stephen Gallo & Lisa Thompson & Karen Schmaling & Scott Glisson, 2018. "Risk evaluation in peer review of grant applications," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 216-229, June.
    16. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2019. "Sorting out Guidelines for the Good Evaluation of Research Practices," DIAG Technical Reports 2019-02, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    17. Ayoubi, Charles & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2019. "The important thing is not to win, it is to take part: What if scientists benefit from participating in research grant competitions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 84-97.
    18. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2017. "The Important Thing is not to Win, it is to Take Part: What If Scientists Benefit from Participating in Competitive Grant Races?," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-27, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    19. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & David Irwin & Caitlin D McPartland & Joseph Travis & Sofie Reynders & Lisa A Thompson & Scott R Glisson, 2014. "The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-9, September.
    20. Wang, Jian & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2018. "Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1070-1083.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04329-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.