A rejoinder to the comments of Benedetto et al. on the paper “Critical remarks on the Italian research assessment exercise VQR 2011–2014” (Journal of Informetrics, 11(2): 337–357)

The paper “Critical remarks on the Italian research assessment exercise VQR 2011–2014” (Franceschini & Maisano, 2017) analyzed some vulnerabilities of the recently concluded Italian assessment exercise. Some apical (former and current)members of ANVUR promptly commented on our criticisms through a letter to the editor (Benedetto, Checchi, Graziosi, & Malgarini, 2017). We believe that this letter is not very convincing. In the following, we provide a rejoinder to the comments directed to our paper

On tit for tat: Franceschini and Maisano versus ANVUR regarding the Italian research assessment exercise VQR 2011-2014

The response by Benedetto, Checchi, Graziosi & Malgarini (2017) (hereafter "BCG&M"), past and current members of the Italian Agency for Evaluation of University and Research Systems (ANVUR), to Franceschini and Maisano's ("F&M") article (2017), inevitably draws us into the debate. BCG&M in fact complain "that almost all criticisms to the evaluation procedures adopted in the two Italian research assessments VQR 2004-2010 and 2011-2014 limit themselves to criticize the procedures without proposing anything new and more apt to the scope". Since it is us who raised most criticisms in the literature, we welcome this opportunity to retrace our vainly "constructive" recommendations, made with the hope of contributing to assessments of the Italian research system more in line with the state of the art in scientometrics. We see it as equally interesting to confront the problem of the failure of knowledge transfer from R&D (scholars) to engineering and production (ANVUR's practitioners) in the Italian VQRs. We will provide a few notes to help the reader understand the context for this failure. We hope that these, together with our more specific comments, will also assist in communicating the reasons for the level of scientometric competence expressed in BCG&M's heated response to F&M's criticism