Click here to download

The Self-Evaluation of the Production of a Scientific Community: A Methodological Proposal
Journal Title: RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione 
Author/s: Giuseppe Anzera, Antonio Fasanella, Serena Liani, Fabrizio Martire, Marco Palmieri 
Year:  2016 Issue: 64 Language: Italian 
Pages:  20 Pg. 112-131 FullText PDF:  1035 KB
DOI:  10.3280/RIV2016-064007
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


In this paper we present a self-evaluation model of the research production of a scientific community. This model is based on a case study: an analysis of the publications of the academic staff at the Department of Communication and Social Research (La Sapienza, University of Rome) from 2011 to 2014. In the first part of the paper, we describe the publications production from a quantitative perspective; then, we introduce more qualitative aspects considering an index of editorial ranking of the publications. In both sections, the synchronic analysis is combined with a diachronic analysis, in order to identify trends. We believe that this model will be useful both for the research institutes to evaluate outputs and outcomes of their policies, and for the researchers to benchmark their publication style against the scientific production of their communities.
Keywords: evaluation of universities; self-evaluation; quality of scientific research; editorial ranking; scientific communities; human and social sciences

  1. Ancaiani A. et al. (2015). Evaluating Scientific Research in Italy: The 2004-10 Research Evaluation Exercise. Research Evaluation, 24: 242-255.
  2. Anvur (2014). LINEE GUIDA per la compilazione della Scheda Unica Annuale della Ricerca Dipartimentale. Testo disponibile al sito: http://www.anvur.org/attachments/article/26/Linee%20Guida%20SUA_RD%20Parte%20I%20e%20II.pdf (28/06/2016)
  3. Anvur (2015). Valutazione della Qualità della Ricerca 2011-2014 (VQR 2011-2014). Bando di partecipazione. Testo disponibile al sito: http://www.anvur.org/attachments/article/825/Bando%20VQR%202011-2014_secon~.pdf (24/06/2016)
  4. Bailar J. C. (1991). Reliability, Fairness, Objectivity and Other Inappropriate Goals in Peer Review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 01: 137-138.
  5. Cannavò L. (2008). Qualità nella ricerca, qualità della ricerca. Quaderni di sociologia, 52: 147-156.
  6. Colozzi I. (a cura di, 2015). La valutazione della ricerca sociologica: analisi delle criticità e indicazioni. Numero monografico di Sociologia e politiche sociali, 18, 2: 205., DOI: 10.3280/SP2015-00201
  7. Cronin B. (2005). The Hand of Science: Academic Writing and Its Rewards. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
  8. De Stefano D., Giordano G., Vitale M. P. (2011). Issues in the Analysis of Co-Authorship Networks. Quality & Quantity, 45, 5: 1091-1107.
  9. Di Benedetto A. (2015). Un’analisi del concetto di qualità della ricerca nella Vqr. Sociologia e ricerca sociale, 108, 3: 95-112., DOI: 10.3280/SR2015-10800
  10. Fasanella A., Di Benedetto A. (2014). Luci ed ombre nella VQR 2004- 2010: un focus sulla scheda di valutazione peer nell’Area 14. Sociologia e ricerca sociale, 35, 104: 59-84., DOI: 10.3280/SR2014-10400
  11. Fasanella A., Di Benedetto A. (2015). La valutazione dei pari nelle scienze sociali e politiche. La lezione della vqr 2004-2010. Sociologia e politiche sociali, 18, 2: 44-72.
  12. Hunter L., Leahey E. (2008). Collaborative Research in Sociology: Trends and Contributing Factors. The American Sociologist, 39, 4: 290-306.
  13. La Rocca C. (2013). Commisurare la ricerca. Piccola teleologia della neovalutazione. Aut Aut, 360: 69-108.
  14. Larivière V., Gingras Y., Sugimoto C. R., Tsou A. (2015). Team Size Matters: Collaboration and Scientific Impact Since 1900. Journal Of The Association For Information Science And Technology, 66, 7: 1323-1332.
  15. Lazarsfeld P. F. (1966). Concept Formation and Measurement in the Behavioral Sciences: Some Historical Observations. In: Di Rienzo G. J., editor, Concepts, Theory, and Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Random House.
  16. Lee C. J., Sugimoto C. R., Zhang G., Cronin B. (2013). Bias in Peer Review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 1: 2-17.
  17. Palumbo M., Pennisi C. (2015), Criteri corretti e condivisi per una valutazione buona e utile della ricerca. Sociologia e politiche sociali, 18, 2: pp. 73-89., DOI: 10.3280/SP2015-002004
  18. Reale E., Barbara A., Costantini A. (2007). Peer Review for the Evaluation of Academic Research: Lessons from the Italian Experience. Research Evaluation, 16: 216-28.
  19. Rebora G., Turri M. (2011), Critical factors in the use of evaluation in Italian universities. Higher Education, 61: 531-44.
  20. Shatz D. (2004). Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
  21. Valenza P. (a c. di, 2013), Valutare o perire. L’università sul mercato. Paradoxa, 7, 2.
  22. Zuckerman H., Merton R.K. (1973). Patterns of Evaluation of Science: Institutionalization, Structure and Functions of the referee system. In: Merton R.K., editor, The sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Giuseppe Anzera, Antonio Fasanella, Serena Liani, Fabrizio Martire, Marco Palmieri, The Self-Evaluation of the Production of a Scientific Community: A Methodological Proposal in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 64/2016, pp. 112-131, DOI:10.3280/RIV2016-064007

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content