Home > Pubblicazioni > Ricerca sulla valutazione

Pubblicazioni / Ricerca sulla valutazione

  • Romagnosi S.
    (2016) La valutazione della Terza Missione da parte dell’Anvur , numero monografico 141

    La valutazione della Terza Missione da parte dell’Anvur

  • Romagnosi S.
    (2016) Produzione e gestione di beni culturali nella valutazione Anvur della terza missione , Vol. 10, pp. 25-32

    Produzione e gestione di beni culturali nella valutazione Anvur della terza missione

    Le attività di produzione e gestione dei beni culturali (scavi archeologici, poli museali e immobili storici) svolte da università ed enti di ricerca, rientrano nell’attuale esercizio di valutazione della terza missione, previsto dalla VQR 2011-2014. La terza missione è infatti rappresentata non solo da attività di valorizzazione della ricerca, ma anche da attività di produzione dei beni pubblici di natura sociale, educativa e culturale, sebbene queste ultime valutate in via sperimentale. Poiché si tratta di un primo sforzo organico da parte dell’Anvur di circoscrivere le numerose attività legate ai beni pubblici, la commissione di esperti cui è affidata la valutazione, fornirà informazioni sulla natura degli indicatori e dei criteri di valutazione proposti, al momento poco standardizzati e comparabili rispetto a quelli legati alle attività di valorizzazione della ricerca. I primi dati mostrano che le nostre università dispongono di un ricco patrimonio di beni culturali, di cui però sappiamo poco sulla sua effettiva valorizzazione.
  • Blasi B., Romagnosi S., Bonaccorsi A.
    (2018) Do SSH Researchers Have a Third Mission (And Should They Have)? , pp. 361-392

    Do SSH Researchers Have a Third Mission (And Should They Have)?

    The notion of the third mission in SSH is still problematic, as well as the concept of research impact. Several streams of critical literature have raised the concern that using the third mission notion or impact may limit the academic freedom of researchers, and reduce the independence from market pressure and impoverish the SSH’s potential for critical thinking and unorthodox visioning. However, countries which have experienced selective cuts in research funding which have penalised SSH disciplines, have seen efforts to make the hidden connections between SSH research and society more visible. This chapter reports on the debate and controversies surrounding this issue. For the first time, preliminary evidence on Public Engagement activities of scholars in SSH, taken from the large-scale assessment of third mission of Italian departments and universities, is presented. This chapter argues that not only scholars in SSH do have a third mission, but that they are not less engaged than their colleagues from STEM disciplines.

    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_16

  • Anfossi A, Ciolfi A, Costa F, Parisi G and Benedetto S
    (2016) Scientometrics

    Large-scale assessment of research outputs through a weighted combination of bibliometric indicators

    The paper describes a method to combine the information on the number of citations and the relevance of the publishing journal (as measured by the Impact Factor or similar impact indicators) of a publication to rank it with respect to the world scientific production in the specific subfield. The linear or non-linear combination of the two indicators is represented on the scatter plot of the papers in the specific subfield in order to immediately visualize the effect of a change in weights. The final rank of the papers is therefore obtained by partitioning the two-dimensional space through linear or higher order curves. The procedure is intuitive and versatile since it allows, after adjusting few parameters, an automatic and calibrated assessment at the level of the subfield. The derived evaluation is homogeneous among different scientific domains and can be used to address the quality of research at the departmental (or higher) levels of aggregation. We apply this method, that is designed to be feasible on a scale typical of a national evaluation exercise and to be effective in terms of cost and time, to some instances of the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database and discuss the results in view of what was done recently in Italy for the Evaluation of Research Quality exercise 2004-2010. We show how the main limitations of the bibliometric methodology used in that context can be easily overcome.

    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1882-9

  • Bertocchi G, Gambardella A, Jappelli T, Nappi CA and Peracchi F
    (2015) Research Policy , 44(2): 451-466

    Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy

    A relevant question for the organization of large-scale research assessments is whether bibliometric evaluation and informed peer review yield similar results. In this paper, we draw on the experience of the panel that evaluated Italian research in Economics, Management and Statistics during the national assessment exercise (VQR) relative to the period 2004-2010. We exploit the unique opportunity of studying a sample of 590 journal articles randomly drawn from a population of 5681 journal articles (out of nearly 12,000 journal and non-journal publications), which the panel evaluated both by bibliometric analysis and by informed peer review. In the total sample we find fair to good agreement between informed peer review and bibliometric analysis and absence of statistical bias between the two. We then discuss the nature, implications, and limitations of this correlation. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.08.004

  • Blasi B

    Severità di giudizio: dinamiche valutative nell’area della sociologia nella VQR 2004-2010

    DOI: 10.3280/SP2015-002002

  • Bonaccorsi A and Cicero T
    (2015) Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

    Distributed or concentrated research excellence? Evidence from a large‐scale research assessment exercise

    DOI: 10.1002/asi.23539

  • Bonaccorsi A and Cicero T
    (2016) Journal of Informetrics

    Nondeterministic ranking of university departments

  • Bonaccorsi A, Cicero T, Ferrara A and Malgarini M
    (2015) F1000Res , 4: 196

    Journal ratings as predictors of articles quality in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences: an analysis based on the Italian Research Evaluation Exercise

    The aim of this paper is to understand whether the probability of receiving positive peer reviews is influenced by having published in an independently assessed, high-ranking journal: we eventually interpret a positive relationship among peer evaluation and journal ranking as evidence that journal ratings are good predictors of article quality. The analysis is based on a large dataset of over 11,500 research articles published in Italy in the period 2004-2010 in the areas of architecture, arts and humanities, history and philosophy, law, sociology and political sciences. These articles received a score by a large number of externally appointed referees in the context of the Italian research assessment exercise (VQR); similarly, journal scores were assigned in a panel-based independent assessment, which involved all academic journals in which Italian scholars have published, carried out under a different procedure. The score of an article is compared with that of the journal it is published in: more specifically, we first estimate an ordered probit model, assessing the probability for a paper of receiving a higher score, the higher the score of the journal; in a second step, we concentrate on the top papers, evaluating the probability of a paper receiving an excellent score having been published in a top-rated journal. In doing so, we control for a number of characteristics of the paper and its author, including the language of publication, the scientific field and its size, the age of the author and the academic status. We add to the literature on journal classification by providing for the first time a large scale test of the robustness of expert-based classification.

    DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.6478.1

  • Bonaccorsi A, Haddaway P, Hassan S, Cicero T, Secondi L and Setteducati E
    (2013) Policy Breaf of the European Commission. Innovation 4 Growth , (10)

    Are European universities facing the Asian challenge in excellent S&T research?