In the past, several works have investigated ways for combining quantitative and qualitative methods in research assessment exercises. Indeed, the Italian National Scientific Qualification (NSQ), i.e. the national assessment exercise which aims at deciding whether a scholar can apply to professorial academic positions as Associate Professor and Full Professor, adopts a quantitative and qualitative evaluation process: it makes use of bibliometrics followed by a peer-review process of candidates' CVs. The NSQ divides academic disciplines into two categories, i.e. citation-based disciplines (CDs) and non-citation-based disciplines (NDs), a division that affects the metrics used for assessing the candidates of that discipline in the first part of the process, which is based on bibliometrics. In this work, we aim at exploring whether citation-based metrics, calculated only considering open bibliographic and citation data, can support the human peer-review of NDs and yield insights on how it is conducted. To understand if and what citation-based (and, possibly, other) metrics provide relevant information, we created a series of machine learning models to replicate the decisions of the NSQ committees. As one of the main outcomes of our study, we noticed that the strength of the citational relationship between the candidate and the commission in charge of assessing his/her CV seems to play a role in the peer-review phase of the NSQ of NDs.
翻译:过去,若干著作调查了将研究评估活动中的定量和定性方法结合起来的方法,实际上,意大利国家科学资格(NSQ),即旨在确定一名学者是否可以作为副教授和正教授申请教授学术职位的国家评估活动,采用了定量和定性评价程序:它采用生物量测法,然后是候选人简历的同行审查程序。 国家科学资格将学科分为两类,即:以引用为基础的学科(CD)和非引用为基础的学科(NDs),这个司影响到评估该学科在该进程第一阶段候选人所使用的衡量标准,该司以生物量度为基础。 在这一工作中,我们旨在探讨以引用为基础的计量方法(仅考虑到公开的书目和引用数据计算)能否支持人文同侪审查,并得出如何进行这种审查的真知灼见。为了了解以引用为基础的学科(以及可能的其他)计量方法是否和提供了相关信息,我们创建了一系列机器学习模型,以复制在国家统计资格评估阶段评估候选人委员会的决定。