English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

There has been ample demonstration that bibliometrics is superior topeer-review for national research assessment exercises in the hard sciences. Inthis paper we examine the Italian case, taking the 2001-2003 universityperformance rankings list based on bibliometrics as benchmark. We compare theaccuracy of the first national evaluation exercise, conducted entirely bypeer-review, to other rankings lists prepared at zero cost, based on indicatorsindirectly linked to performance or available on the Internet. The results showthat, for the hard sciences, the costs of conducting the Italian evaluation ofresearch institutions could have been completely avoided.

National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: the Italian case