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/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

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

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In the past decades, many countries have started to fund academicinstitutions based on the evaluation of their scientific performance. In thiscontext, post-publication peer review is often used to assess scientificperformance. Bibliometric indicators have been suggested as an alternative topeer review. A recurrent question in this context is whether peer review andmetrics tend to yield similar outcomes. In this paper, we study the agreementbetween bibliometric indicators and peer review based on a sample ofpublications submitted for evaluation to the national Italian researchassessment exercise (2011--2014). In particular, we study the agreement betweenbibliometric indicators and peer review at a higher aggregation level, namelythe institutional level. Additionally, we also quantify the internal agreementof peer review at the institutional level. We base our analysis on ahierarchical Bayesian model using cross-validation. We find that the level ofagreement is generally higher at the institutional level than at thepublication level. Overall, the agreement between metrics and peer review is onpar with the internal agreement among two reviewers for certain fields ofscience in this particular context. This suggests that for some fields,bibliometric indicators may possibly be considered as an alternative to peerreview for the Italian national research assessment exercise. Although resultsdo not necessarily generalise to other contexts, it does raise the questionwhether similar findings would obtain for other research assessment exercises,such as in the United Kingdom.

Metrics and peer review agreement at the institutional level