Behind the neutral appearance of the rules governing research evaluation in Italy lies an opaque and self-referential system. An analysis conducted by Alberto Baccini and Cristina Re reveals that the VQR panels (Research Quality Evaluation), especially in the economic area, are dominated by closed and influential academic networks, often linked to Bocconi University.
Independent panels? Only when there was a draw
The comparison between the first two VQRs (2004–2010 and 2011–2014), whose panels were directly appointed by ANVUR (National Agency for the Evaluation of the University and Research System - Ministry of University and Research), and the third (2015–2019), where a draw among candidates was introduced, is telling: only the VQR with drawn panels showed real pluralism and absence of power concentration. With the current VQR, we have gone backward: ANVUR has resumed directly appointing some of the commissioners, reactivating dynamics of closure and conformity.
Power networks: same names, same affiliations
Through a sophisticated network analysis, the research traced connections among the commissioners: co-authorship, common publications, institutional affiliations, and presence in academic media. The result? A closed network, dominated by a small group, with Bocconi as the gravitational center. Former students and faculty move between journals, research centers, and think tanks, silently influencing the direction of evaluation.
Pluralism sacrificed on the altar of the mainstream
Economics, a discipline theoretically defined by plurality, is reduced to a single voice. Heterodox schools of thought are systematically marginalized, and appointments to panels often seem "decorative," with a few dissenting names included only to save appearances. A phenomenon known as tokenism: symbolic inclusion that does not affect real control.
Evaluation that homogenizes and stifles
The risk? Research that rewards conformity, produces "measurable" but not very innovative results, and serves academic hierarchies more than the public good. The current system — based on logics of performance, standardization, and competitiveness — has reduced science to a zero-sum game, where those inside decide what is valuable and what is not.
A paradigm shift is needed
If research is truly to serve society, it must be freed from the oligarchic logics that cage it. Scientific pluralism must be protected, transparency strengthened, and drawing reintroduced. A public reflection on the true purpose of evaluation is needed: not to homogenize, but to promote intellectual freedom, innovation, and critical thinking.
