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 Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

The response by Benedetto, Checchi, Graziosi & Malgarini (2017) (hereafter"BCG&M"), past and current members of the Italian Agency for Evaluation ofUniversity and Research Systems (ANVUR), to Franceschini and Maisano's ("F&M")article (2017), inevitably draws us into the debate. BCG&M in fact complain"that almost all criticisms to the evaluation procedures adopted in the twoItalian research assessments VQR 2004-2010 and 2011-2014 limit themselves tocriticize the procedures without proposing anything new and more apt to thescope". Since it is us who raised most criticisms in the literature, we welcomethis opportunity to retrace our vainly "constructive" recommendations, madewith the hope of contributing to assessments of the Italian research systemmore in line with the state of the art in scientometrics. We see it as equallyinteresting to confront the problem of the failure of knowledge transfer fromR&D (scholars) to engineering and production (ANVUR's practitioners) in theItalian VQRs. We will provide a few notes to help the reader understand thecontext for this failure. We hope that these, together with our more specificcomments, will also assist in communicating the reasons for the level ofscientometric competence expressed in BCG&M's heated response to F&M'scriticism.

On tit for tat: Franceschini and Maisano versus ANVUR regarding the Italian research assessment exercise VQR 2011-2014