Abstract

Peer evaluations are central to the incentive structure of academia, requiring researchers to frequently serve on evaluation panels. Quantifying the individual opportunity costs of this service, however, is challenging due to the non-random selection of those invited and willing to participate. We estimate these costs using data from a unique context: Italian national academic evaluations, where evaluators are randomly selected from eligible professors in their respective disciplines. Over a two-year period, these evaluators review approximately 400 CVs, a workload comparable to that of a junior hiring committee in a large department. Our findings suggest that researchers experience a significant decline in research output during and shortly after their service, amounting to a loss equivalent to 40% of their annual productivity.

Citation

Not circulated yet.