Abstract

In SSH the definition of commonly agreed research quality criteria is problematic. Their implementation in the drafting of questions addressed to anonymous referees in the peer review process may create unintended distortions. The chapter reports on an initiative of ANVUR, following the publication of the first research assessment exercise, based on the creation of several expert groups in SSH. These groups were left free to formulate recommendations and criticisms about the evaluation process, in particular with respect to the peer review process. It turns out that many recommendations were in fact received and led to the formulation of the new exercise. When they were not received, the motivations were spelled out. It is argued that this conversational dynamics may greatly favour the convergence of scientific communities in SSH towards shared criteria.