Reply to the comment of Bertocchi et al.
Scientometrics, ISSN: 1588-2861, Vol: 108, Issue: 3, Page: 1675-1684
2016
- 6Citations
- 10Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Letter Description
The aim of this note is to reply to Bertocchi et al.’s comment to our paper “Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise”. Our paper analyzed results of the experiment conducted by the Italian governmental agency ANVUR during the research assessment exercise about the agreement between informed peer review (IR) and bibliometrics. We argued that according to available statistical guidelines, results of the experiment are indicative of a poor agreement in all research fields with only one exception, results reached in the so called Area 13 (economics and statistics). We argued that this difference was due to the changes introduced in Area 13 with respect to the protocol adopted in all the other areas. Bertocchi et al.’s comment dismiss our explanation and suggest that the difference was due to “differences in the evaluation processes between Area 13 and other areas”. In addition, they state that all our five claims about Area 13 experiment protocol “are either incorrect or not based on any evidence”. Based on textual evidence drawn from ANVUR official reports, we show that: (1) none of the four differences listed by Bertocchi et al. is peculiar of Area 13; (2) their five arguments contesting our claims about the experiment protocol are all contradicted by official records of the experiment itself.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84978045095&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2055-6; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2055-6; http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11192-016-2055-6; http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11192-016-2055-6.pdf; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-016-2055-6/fulltext.html; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2055-6; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-016-2055-6
Springer Nature
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know