  In research evaluation, the fair representation of panels is usually defined
in terms of observable characteristics of scholars such as gender or
affiliations. An an empirical strategy is proposed for exploring hidden
connections between panellists such that, despite the respect of formal
requirements, the panel could be considered alike as unfair with respect to the
representation of diversity of research approaches and methodologies. The case
study regards the three panels selected to evaluate research in economics,
statistics and business during the Italian research assessment exercises. The
first two panels were appointed directly by the governmental agency responsible
for the evaluation, while the third was randomly selected. Hence the third
panel can be considered as a control for evaluating about the fairness of the
others. The fair representation is explored by comparing the networks of
panellists based on their co-authorship relations, the networks based on
journals in which they published and the networks based on their affiliated
institutions (universities, research centres and newspapers). The results show
that the members of the first two panels had connections much higher than the
members of the control group. Hence the composition of the first two panels
should be considered as unfair, as the results of the research assessments.
