Scientific activities are being assessed permanently. The best well-known and well-established evaluation process is peer review. Peer-review-based systems may have different goals; therefore several guidelines are normally set to be followed by individual experts. Normally, the components to be evaluated are known to the whole interested community, but peers make use of their own criteria to evaluate the performance on these components, introducing subjectivity in the whole process. This article reports on an attempt to better understand the decisions of peer-review panels and the role that bibliometric analysis might play in supporting the evaluation of scientific merit in peer-review processes. A particular evaluation process for the national selection of junior and senior researchers is considered. The results show that the dimensions more highly valued by the peers differ depending on the applicant’s phase in the scientific career. For applicants with shorter careers, international collaboration appears to be the dimension more highly valued. In the case of applicants at an intermediate phase of the scientific career, the impact dimension showed to be the most relevant.

中文翻译：

---

同行评审过程：根据研究人员的科学生涯，最有价值的方面

科学活动正在得到永久评估。最好的知名和公认的评估过程是同行评审。基于同行评审的系统可能有不同的目标。因此，个别专家通常会遵循几项准则。通常，要评估的组件是整个感兴趣的社区都知道的，但是同行使用他们自己的标准来评估这些组件的性能，从而在整个过程中引入了主观性。本文报告了一种尝试，以更好地理解同行评审小组的决策以及文献计量分析在支持同行评审过程中科学价值评估中可能发挥的作用。考虑了一个全国性选拔初级和高级研究人员的特殊评估程序。结果表明，同龄人更重视的维度取决于申请人在科学生涯中的阶段。对于职业生涯较短的申请人，国际合作似乎是更受重视的方面。对于处于科学职业中期阶段的申请人而言，影响范围被证明是最相关的。