Abstract

We study how the presence of experts affects decision-making in committees. Leveraging ad- ministrative data from Italy’s Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale – a centralized academic pro- motion system with random assignment of evaluators to field-level committees – we provide causal evidence that prolific researchers significantly influence evaluation outcomes. Experts apply stricter standards, emphasize research quality over quantity, and influence peers to adopt similar criteria. They also select candidates who are more productive over the following decade and more likely to earn subsequent promotions. However, committee service imposes substan- tial costs. For top researchers, participation reduces research output by approximately 30% of a year’s production over a two-year term. This burden lowers their future willingness to serve, revealing a structural tension: while expert involvement improves evaluation quality, it may ultimately erode the sustainability of expert-driven systems.

Citation

Not circulated.