Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: evidence from Italy

A relevant question for the organization of large-scale research assessments is whether bibliometric eval-uation and informed peer review yield similar results. In this paper, we draw on the experience of thepanel that evaluated Italian research in Economics, Management and Statistics during the national assess-ment exercise (VQR) relative to the period 2004–2010. We exploit the unique opportunity of studying asample of 590 journal articles randomly drawn from a population of 5681 journal articles (out of nearly12,000 journal and non-journal publications), which the panel evaluated both by bibliometric analysisand by informed peer review. In the total sample we find fair to good agreement between informed peer-review and bibliometric analysis and absence of statistical bias between the two. We then discuss thenature, implications, and limitations of this correlation.