Allocative efficiency in public research funding:can bibliometrics help?

TL;DR

This paper compares peer review and bibliometric methods for evaluating research in Italy's hard sciences to assess if bibliometrics can effectively complement traditional peer review in research funding decisions.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive comparison of peer review and bibliometric evaluation methods across all hard sciences in Italy, highlighting potential complementarities.

Findings

Bibliometric approach is less costly and faster than peer review.

Bibliometrics can complement peer review in research evaluation.

Results suggest potential integration of methods improves assessment accuracy.

Abstract

The use of outcome control modes of research evaluation exercises is ever more frequent. They are conceived as tools to stimulate increased levels of research productivity, and to guide choices in allocating components of government research budgets for publicly funded institutions. There are several contributions in the literature that compare the different methodological approaches that policy makers could adopt for these exercises, however the comparisons are limited to only a few disciplines. This work, examining the case of the whole of the "hard sciences" of the Italian academic system, makes a comparison between results obtained from peer review type of evaluations (as adopted by the Ministry of Universities and Research) and those possible from a bibliometric approach (as developed by the authors). The aim is to understand to what extent bibliometric methodology, which is noted as relatively inexpensive, time-saving and exhaustive, can complement and integrate peer review methodology in research evaluation.