Bonaccorsi, A. (2020). Two Decades of Experience in Research Assessment in Italy. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1): 16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.27 RESEARCH Two Decades of Experience in Research Assessment in Italy Andrea Bonaccorsi Univ Pisa, IT a.bonaccorsi@gmail.com The paper reviews the Italian experience in the evaluation of research in the 2000–2020 period. The initial exercise (VTR 2000–2003) did not involve all researchers and had no impact on funding. After a long political and cultural debate there was a decision to create an independent Agency in charge of a periodic research assessment, involving all researchers, and having impact on performance-based funding. The legislation was approved in 2006 and the Agency was created in 2010–2011. In parallel, a major reform of academic promotion was approved in 2010. The Agency (ANVUR) launched three exercises, two of which have been completed and published (Valutazione della Qualità della Ricerca, or Assessment of Research Quality, VQR 2004–2010 and VQR 2011–2014). It also developed a complete array of quantitative indicators to be used as a threshold for candidates to the academic promotion (Habilitation). The paper ofers detailed evidence of the evaluative framework, the main methodological and practical problems and the changes and adaptations introduced over time. It concludes with several policy implications. Keywords: research assessment; bibliometrics; evaluative framework; Italy; ANVUR; VQR 1. Introduction and caveat This paper is the first of a two-part essay in which I try to offer a complete and critical view of the Italian experience of research assessment. Part I is dedicated to the detailed description of the experience, while in Part II I will try to make justice of the criticisms and controversies generated by research assessment. Italy is an interesting case study for the international community working on science policy and research evaluation, on the one hand, and on informetrics and bibliometrics, on the other hand. It is the only large Continental European country in which research assessment has been made mandatory, has implications on university funding, and is carried out on a large scale at regular intervals. With more than 180,000 research products evaluated, the VQR 2004–2010 was the largest institutional exercise ever carried out. With more than 40,000 titles and 15,000 journals rated, the journal rating system is one of the largest available and has survived the criticisms that in other countries, such as France and Australia, led to its cancelation. Another intriguing reason of interest is that in the Italian context the evaluative informetrics, in particular the use of bibliometric indicators, has been introduced suddenly and rapidly, generating in a few years a lot of controversies, but also large opportunities for institutional learning and adaptation. There is an important caveat to my analysis: I have been a member of the Board of the Italian Agency (ANVUR) dur- ing the startup phase (2011–2015) and I have been personally responsible for some of the procedures, and collectively responsible for all decisions made in that period. In the current and the companion paper I will try to examine the expe- rience in a professional way, by using the available evidence systematically and balancing the arguments. The reader will evaluate whether my account is worth of attention. In this paper I first describe the events and decisions that led to the various research assessment exercises (Section 2). I then work backward, from the legislation and the administration to the main principles, objectives, purposes and criteria of the evaluative framework (Section 3), as reconstructed. The reasons for this inversion of the logical flow (not from principles to execution but the other way round) will be clear to the reader only after reading these sections. Section 4 discusses the reception of the research assessment in the university landscape and Section 5 enlarges the description to another assessment activity carried out by the Agency in the context of National Scientific Habilitation of candidates to the academic career. In the companion paper I will examine all criticisms that have been raised against the research assessment in the peer-reviewed literature and will try to balance the various arguments. At the end I will try to propose a balanced judgment of the overall experience.