In the past decades, many countries have started to fund academic institutions based on the evaluation of their scientific performance. In this context, peer review is often used to assess scientific performance. Bibliometric indicators have been suggested as an alternative. A recurrent question in this context is whether peer review and metrics tend to yield similar outcomes. In this paper, we study the agreement between bibliometric indicators and peer review at the institutional level. Additionally, we also quantify the internal agreement of peer review at the institutional level. We find that the level of agreement is generally higher at the institutional level than at the publication level. Overall, the agreement between metrics and peer review is on par with the internal agreement among two reviewers for certain fields of science. This suggests that for some fields, bibliometric indicators may possibly be considered as an alternative to peer review for national research assessment exercises.

中文翻译：

---

机构层面的衡量标准和同行评审协议

在过去的几十年里，许多国家开始根据对学术机构的科学绩效进行评估来资助学术机构。在这种情况下，同行评审通常用于评估科学绩效。文献计量指标已被建议作为替代方案。在这种情况下，一个反复出现的问题是同行评审和指标是否倾向于产生类似的结果。在本文中，我们研究了文献计量指标与机构层面同行评审之间的一致性。此外，我们还量化了机构层面同行评审的内部协议。我们发现，机构层面的一致程度通常高于出版层面。总体而言，度量标准和同行评审之间的一致性与某些科学领域的两名审阅者之间的内部一致性相当。