Scientometric indicators: peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests

Abstract

The paper discusses the role of scientometric indicators in peer-review selection of research project proposals. An ex post facto evaluation was made of three calls for research project proposals in Slovenia: 2003 with a peer review system designed in a way that conflict of interest was not avoided effectively, 2005 with a sound international peerreview system with minimized conflict of interest influence but a limited number of reviewers, and 2008 with a combination of scientometric indicators and a sound international peer review with minimized conflict of interest influence. The hypothesis was that the three different peer review systems would have different correlations with the same set of scientometric indicators. In the last two decision-making systems (2005 and 2008) where conflict of interest was effectively avoided, we have a high percentage (65%) of projects that would have been selected in the call irrespective of the method (peer review or bibliometrics solely). In contrast, in the 2003 call there is a significantly smaller percentage (49%) of projects that would have been selected in the call irrespective of the

Research infrastructure in Slovenia and the role of academic libraries

“…Tijekom 2005. i 2008. godine, kada je recenzijski postupak učinkovito eliminirao mogućnost sukoba interesa, 65% projekata odabranih pomoću bibliometrijskih pokazatelja podudaralo se s projektima prihvaćenim nakon recenzijskog postupka. Tijekom 2003. godine, kada postupak recenzije nije bio osmišljen na objektivan način koji bi učinkovito eliminirao sukobe interesa, samo 49% projekata odabranih pomoću bibliometrijskih pokazatelja podudaralo se s projektima prihvaćenim nakon recenzijskog postupka (Južnič et al 2010). …”

Establishing of a Slovenian open access infrastructure: a technical point of view

“…A part of COBISS.SI also contains authority controla normalisation database of personal and corporate names (CONOR.SI), where information is stored about authors and their affiliations to organisations. CONOR.SI also holds records of the Slovenian Research Agency's identity numbers for researchers, which can be used for establishing connections with the SICRIS (Južnič et al, 2010). SICRIS holds data about researchers, research organisations, research groups and research projects, therefore being of service during the evaluations of researchers' performances.…”

Nedostaci sadašnjeg sistema vrednovanja naučnika – kako ga usavršiti?

“…Međutim, smatram da je najvažnije, i da treba obratiti posebnu pažnju kvalitetu naučnih rezultata (uticajnost naučnih radova, pozitivna citiranost, ugled i uticaj publikacija u kojima su radovi objavljeni, efektivni broj radova i broj radova normiran na osnovu broja koautora, ukupan broj radova, udeo samostalnih i koautorskih radova u njemu, doprinos koautorskim radovima) jer se tu primenjuju priznati scijentometrijski parametri vrednovanja. Ipak, pravi percepcijski indikator -recenzija (Peer review) je i dalje najvažniji instument [29], a sve gore navedeno su samo dodatni indikatori koji se uzimaju u obzir prilikom evaluacije naučnika -pojedinca [30].…”