IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp12155.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Have You Read This? An Empirical Comparison of the British REF Peer Review and the Italian VQR Bibliometric Algorithm

Author

Listed:
  • Checchi, Daniele

    (University of Milan)

  • Ciolfi, Alberto

    (ANVUR)

  • De Fraja, Gianni

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Mazzotta, Irene

    (ANVUR)

  • Verzillo, Stefano

    (European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC))

Abstract

This paper determines the ranking of the publications units of assessment which were submitted to the UK research evaluation carried out in 2014, the REF, which would have been obtained if their submission had been evaluated with the bibliometric algorithm used by the Italian evaluation agency, ANVUR, for its evaluation of the research of Italian universities. We find very high correlation between the two methods, especially in regard to the funding allocation, with a headline figure of 0.9997 for the funding attributed to the institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Checchi, Daniele & Ciolfi, Alberto & De Fraja, Gianni & Mazzotta, Irene & Verzillo, Stefano, 2019. "Have You Read This? An Empirical Comparison of the British REF Peer Review and the Italian VQR Bibliometric Algorithm," IZA Discussion Papers 12155, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp12155
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp12155.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2015. "Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 451-466.
    2. Gianni De Fraja & Giovanni Facchini & John Gathergood, 2016. "How Much Is That Star in the Window? Professorial Salaries and Research Performance in UK Universities," Discussion Papers 2016-13, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    3. O. Mryglod & R. Kenna & Yu. Holovatch & B. Berche, 2015. "Predicting results of the research excellence framework using departmental h-index: revisited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 1013-1017, September.
    4. Gianni De Fraja & Giovanni Facchini & John Gathergood, 2019. "Academic salaries and public evaluation of university research: Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 34(99), pages 523-583.
    5. J. E. Hirsch, 2010. "An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 741-754, December.
    6. Graziella Bertocchi & Alfonso Gambardella & Tullio Jappelli & Carmela Anna Nappi & Franco Peracchi, 2016. "Comment to: Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 349-353, July.
    7. O. Mryglod & R. Kenna & Yu. Holovatch & B. Berche, 2015. "Predicting results of the Research Excellence Framework using departmental h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2165-2180, March.
    8. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2016. "Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1651-1671, September.
    9. Alberto Anfossi & Alberto Ciolfi & Filippo Costa & Giorgio Parisi & Sergio Benedetto, 2016. "Large-scale assessment of research outputs through a weighted combination of bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 671-683, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Antonin Mac'e, 2017. "The Limits of Citation Counts," Papers 1711.02695, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    2. Aboozar Hadavand & Daniel S. Hamermesh & Wesley W. Wilson, 2021. "Publishing Economics: How Slow? Why Slow? Is Slow Productive? Fixing Slow?," NBER Working Papers 29147, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Hamermesh, Daniel S. & Kosnik, Lea-Rachel, 2022. "Aging in Style: Does How We Write Matter?," IZA Discussion Papers 15739, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Erich Battistin & Marco Ovidi, 2022. "Rising Stars: Expert Reviews and Reputational Yardsticks in the Research Excellence Framework," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(356), pages 830-848, October.
    5. Daniele Checchi & Irene Mazzotta & Sandro Momigliano & Francesco Olivanti, 2020. "Convergence or polarisation? The impact of research assessment exercises in the Italian case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1439-1455, August.

    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. Thelwall, Mike & Kousha, Kayvan & Stuart, Emma & Makita, Meiko & Abdoli, Mahshid & Wilson, Paul & Levitt, Jonathan, 2023. "Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    2. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2016. "Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1651-1671, September.
    3. Alberto Baccini & Lucio Barabesi & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2020. "On the agreement between bibliometrics and peer review: Evidence from the Italian research assessment exercises," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-28, November.
    4. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe Nicolao, 2016. "Reply to the comment of Bertocchi et al," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1675-1684, September.
    5. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Emanuela Reale, 2019. "Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 537-554, October.
    6. Camil Demetrescu & Andrea Ribichini & Marco Schaerf, 2020. "Are Italian research assessment exercises size-biased?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 533-549, October.
    7. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2017. "Critical remarks on the Italian research assessment exercise VQR 2011–2014," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 337-357.
    8. Shahd Al-Janabi & Lee Wei Lim & Luca Aquili, 2021. "Development of a tool to accurately predict UK REF funding allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8049-8062, September.
    9. Erich Battistin & Marco Ovidi, 2022. "Rising Stars: Expert Reviews and Reputational Yardsticks in the Research Excellence Framework," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(356), pages 830-848, October.
    10. James Tooley & Barrie Craven, 2018. "Private Sector Alternatives to the Research Excellence Framework for University League Tables," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 434-443, October.
    11. Carlo D'Ippoliti, 2021. "“Many‐Citedness”: Citations Measure More Than Just Scientific Quality," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1271-1301, December.
    12. Erich Battistin & Marco Ovidi, 2017. "Rising Stars," Working Papers 843, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    13. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Iori, Giulia & Maynou, Laia & Tumminello, Michele & Vassallo, Pietro, 2023. "Performance-based research funding: Evidence from the largest natural experiment worldwide," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    14. Stephan B. Bruns & David I. Stern, 2016. "Research assessment using early citation information," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 917-935, August.
    15. Cappelletti-Montano, Beniamino & Columbu, Silvia & Montaldo, Stefano & Musio, Monica, 2022. "Interpreting the outcomes of research assessments: A geometrical approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    16. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2016. "Refrain from adopting the combination of citation and journal metrics to grade publications, as used in the Italian national research assessment exercise (VQR 2011–2014)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2053-2065, December.
    17. Abramo, Giovanni, 2018. "Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 590-597.
    18. Graziella Bertocchi & Alfonso Gambardella & Tullio Jappelli & Carmela Anna Nappi & Franco Peracchi, 2016. "Comment to: Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 349-353, July.
    19. Basso, Antonella & di Tollo, Giacomo, 2022. "Prediction of UK research excellence framework assessment by the departmental h-index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(3), pages 1036-1049.
    20. Daniele Checchi & Irene Mazzotta & Sandro Momigliano & Francesco Olivanti, 2020. "Convergence or polarisation? The impact of research assessment exercises in the Italian case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1439-1455, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    university funding; incentives; assessment of academic research; university ranking; publications; bibliometry;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:iza:izadps:dp12155. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    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.