Analysis of the evaluation process of the research performance: An empirical case

Abstract

In this paper we analyze the objectivity of the peer review process of research performance by research groups in the scientific and technological Valencian system, over the period 1998-2002. For that purpose, we use qualitative and quantitative indicators to assess which of them are the most important to determine a research group as excellent one, based on peer review evaluation methodology. The results show that excellence appears to be driven only by publications in SCI/SSCI and the number of sexenios, and suggest that the peer review process is not as objective as we expected.

How diversity contributes to academic research teams performance

“…This study focuses on scientific research groups at universities that represent a type of research unit characterised by being ‘[…] relatively autonomous in their decision‐making processes’ (Ryan and Hurley, , p. 346). The research groups' goal is the generation of new knowledge, but it is also their main output, which can take different forms like articles, books, patents, consultancies or staff training (García‐Aracil et al., ). Thus, researchers can be defined as knowledge workers, employed in the generation of knowledge.…”

“…Although the outputs of research groups can take different forms, universities research quality systems typically focus on publications as the most important indicator of performance because they are linked to universities' objectives (García‐Aracil et al., ; Sousa et al., ). At universities, research quality systems establish the rules for what is considered adequate research output.…”

An evaluation of research performance in management of 168 Taiwan universities

“…Scientometrics 78 (2009) There are two key issues which should be considered in the performance evaluation: the criteria and their associated importance. Different indicators and data sources result in different outcomes [GARCIA-ARACIL & AL., 2006;SCHLOEGL & AL., 2003]. HIGGINS [1989] pointed out some principles which should be considered in selecting indicators for evaluation.…”

Synthetic hybrid indicators based on scientific collaboration to quantify and evaluate individual research results

“…In this context, a need has arisen to broaden the traditional approach to the analysis and study of research results, descending to the group or even the individual scale and supplementing the output-, productivity-, visibility-and impactbased focus with new measures that emphasize collaboration from the vantage of structural analysis (Acedo et al, 2006;Bonaccorsi & Daraio, 2003;Börner et al, 2005;Calero et al, 2006;Cohen, 1991;Colman, Dhillon, & Coulthard, 1995;García-Aracil, Gutiérrez Gracia, & Pérez-Martín, 2006;Genest & Thibault, 2001;Kretschmer, 1997;Lee, 2003;Moed et al, 1998;Noyons, Moed, & van Raan, 1999;Qurashi, 1993;Rey-Rocha, Martín-Sempere, & Garzón-García, 2002;Rey-Rocha, Garzón-García, & Martín-Sempere, 2006;Seglen & Aksnes, 2000;van Leeuwen & Moed, 2005).…”