Authors : Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, Leonardo Grilli
In the evaluation of scientific publications’ impact, the interplay between intrinsic quality and non-scientific factors remains a subject of debate. While peer review traditionally assesses quality, bibliometric techniques gauge scholarly impact.
This study investigates the role of non-scientific attributes alongside quality scores from peer review in determining scholarly impact. Leveraging data from the first Italian Research Assessment Exercise (VTR 2001–2003) and Web of Science citations, we analyse the relationship between quality scores, non-scientific factors, and publication short- and long-term impact.
Our findings shed light on the significance of non-scientific elements overlooked in peer review, offering policymakers and research management insights in choosing evaluation methodologies. Sections delve into the debate, identify non-scientific influences, detail methodologies, present results, and discuss implications.