In the two ANVUR assessment exercises (VQR 2004-2010 and 2011-2014) two complementary methods have been used: the peer review, i.e. the qualitative evaluation of the work between peers, and the quantitative evaluation, based on the use of bibliometric indicators calculating the number of publications and the number of citations received.

The algorithm used for the quantitative assessment was based on the combination of the bibliometric indicator of the journal the article was published in with the number of citations received.

Each article was assessed making reference to a specific disciplinary category (WoS SC e Scopus ASJC). For some disciplines these were integrated with ad hoc ones depending on the specific Scientific Disciplinary Area [Settore Scientifico Disciplinare - SSD].

The two criteria in play have been highly criticized. Indeed, traditional metrics have been questioned since they are based on the simple counting of the citations received by an article, not taking into account other possible parameters. 

At the present time, the peer-review is the only method for a straightforward qualitative assessment of the research production. However, it is considered as a time-consuming, subjective process; for these reasons it may undergo mistakes, not being completely objective.

The analysis of new criteria and tools for the assessment of research is one of the most important innovations introduced by Open Science.

The following readings represent some of the multiple considerations at international level on the actions that could be undertaken to motivate the scientific community towards Open Science and to promote the emergence of a different VQR.

In the In depths section articles on the impact of the current evaluation system on the practices of science and the emergence of Open Science are reported.

Developed by Joomla3.x from