Abstract
The chapter examines the guidelines and recommendations adopted by a number of international institutions in order to manage the peer review process. These guidelines refer to research quality criteria, indicators and metrics, operationalisations, language and translations, format of questionnaire and response sheet, as well as offer suggestions on the choice of referees, their background, expected performance, and ex post performance appraisal.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
The report indicates another relevant document, see Institut de France, Académie des sciences, L’évaluation individuelle des chercheurs et des enseignants-chercheurs en sciences exactes et expérimentales. 8 juillet 2009, http://www.academie-sciences.fr/activite/rapport/rapport080709.pdf
- 2.
Amongst the critical issues of peer review, the following can be highlighted: “les manquements fréquents concernant la qualité des évaluateurs, leur éthique personnelle, l’objectivité, la transparence, la qualité de leurs évaluations, et l’analyse trop superficielle des travaux examinés liée en partie au nombre excessif d’expertises demandées aux meilleurs scientifiques”, cfr. Académie des sciences, Du bon usage de la bibliometrie, cit., p. 9–10.
- 3.
On the topic of pre/post-publication reviews, see the interesting report issued by the House of Commons: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Peer review in scientific publications: eighth report of session 2010–12, Vol. I. 18 July 2011, p. 66–67. The whole report constitutes a synthesis of the issues and possibilities of peer review, which are summarised in p. 88–94, http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/peer-review/
References
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 87(3), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7.
ANVUR. (2011). Valutazione della qualità della ricerca 2004–2010 (VQR 2004–2010). http://www.anvur.org/attachments/article/122/bando_vqr_def_07_11.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2016.
ANVUR. (2012). Sul calcolo delle mediane per l’abilitazione nazionale. http://www.anvur.org/attachments/article/253/mediane_spiegate_definitivo_14_settembre_2012.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2016.
ANVUR. (2013). VQR 2004–2010: Rapporto finale di area Gruppo di Esperti della Valutazione dell’Area 11 (GEV 11). http://www.anvur.org/rapporto/files/Area11/VQR2004-2010_Area11_RapportoFinale.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016.
ANVUR. (2015a). Valutazione della qualità della ricerca 2011–2014 (VQR 2011–2014). http://www.anvur.org/attachments/article/825/Bando%20VQR%202011-2014_secon~.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2016.
ANVUR. (2015b). VQR 2011–2014: Linee Guida dei Gruppi di Esperti della Valutazione (GEV). http://www.anvur.org/attachments/article/825/Linee%20guida%20GEV_italiano_~.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2016.
ANVUR. (2015c). VQR 2011–2014: Criteri per la valutazione dei prodotti di ricerca. Gruppo di Esperti della Valutazione dell’Area 11a (GEV 11a). http://www.anvur.it/attachments/article/853/Criteri%20GEV%2011a.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2016.
Baccini, A., & De Nicolao, G. (2016). Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1929-y.
Bertocchi, G., Gambardella, A., Jappelli, T., et al. (2015). Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 44(2), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.08.004.
Capaccioni, A., & Spina, G. (2016). La valutazione della monografia scientifica e il ruolo degli editori: il progetto spagnolo Scholarly Publishers Indicators (SPI). Bibliothecae.it, 5(1), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2283-9364/6128.
Cicero, T., Malgarini, M., Nappi, C.A., et al. (2013). Bibliometric and peer review methods for research evaluation: A methodological appraisement. Munich personal RePEc archive (MPRA). https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/50470. Accessed 11 July 2016.
COPE. (2013). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2016.
DORA. (2012). San Francisco declaration on research assessment. http://www.ascb.org/doraold/files/SFDeclarationFINAL.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2016.
ESF. (2011). European peer review guide: Integrating policies and practices into coherent procedures. https://www.vr.se/download/18.2ab49299132224ae10680001647/European+Peer+Review+Guide.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2016.
Faggiolani, C. (2015). Contro le unanticipated consequences della valutazione quantitativa della ricerca: il Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. AIB Studi, 55(3), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.2426/aibstudi-11366.
Giménez Toledo, E. (2016). Assessment of journal & book publishers in the humanities and social sciences in Spain. In M. Ochsner, S. E. Hug, & H. D. Daniel (Eds.), Research assessment in the humanities (pp. 91–102). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_8.
Giménez Toledo, E., & Tejada Artigas, C. M. (2015). Proceso de publicación, calidad y prestigio de las editoriales científicas en educación. Educación XX1, 18(1), 17–44. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.18.1.12310.
Giménez Toledo, E., Tejada Artigas, C. M., & Mañana-Rodríguez, J. (2013). Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey. Research Evaluation, 22(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs036.
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., et al. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a.
Institut de France, Académie des sciences. (2009). L’évaluation individuelle des chercheurs et des enseignants-chercheurs en sciences exactes et expérimentales. http://www.academie-sciences.fr/archivage_site/activite/rapport/rapport080709.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2016.
Institut de France, Académie des Sciences. (2011). Du bon usage de la bibliométrie pour l’évaluation individuelle des chercheurs. http://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/rapport/avis170111.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016.
Institut de France, Académie des sciences. (2014). Les Nouveaux Enjeux de l’édition scientifique. Paris. http://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/rapport/rads_241014.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016.
Moed, H. (2007). The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 575–583. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207X255179.
Mulligan, A., & van Rossumhttp, J. (2014). What you think about the peer-review process: We turn the spotlight on the results of Elsevier studies reflecting the views of more than 3000 active researchers. http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/peer-review/what-you-think-about-thepeer- review-process. Accessed 14 July 2016.
Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798.
Neufeld, J., & von Ins, M. (2011). Informed peer review and uninformed bibliometrics? Research Evaluation, 20(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876382.
Nicholas, K. A., & Gordon, W. S. (2011). A quick guide to writing a solid peer review. Eos, 92(28), 233–234.
REF. (2011). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2016.
Research Information Network. (2010). Peer review: A guide for researchers. London. Available at. www.rin.ac.uk/peer-review-guide. Accessed 11 July 2016.
Research Information Network. (2015). Scholarly communication and peer review: The current landscape and future trends. A report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust. http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/scholarlycommunicationandpeerreviewcurrentlandapeandfuturetrends.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2016.
Turner, S. R. (2009). Best practices in peer review assure quality, value, objectivity. Journal of the National Grants Management Association, 17(1), 43–44.
Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E. et al. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363
Zuccala, A., & van Leeuwen, T. (2011). Book reviews in humanities research evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 1979–1991. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21588.
Zuccala, A., van Someren, M., & van Bellen, M. (2014). A machine-learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators: Toward a theory of megacitation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(11), 2248–2260. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23104.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Capaccioni, A., Spina, G. (2018). Guidelines for Peer Review. A Survey of International Practices. In: Bonaccorsi, A. (eds) The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68553-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68554-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)