IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v25y2016i3p244-256..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What happens when national research funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? A comparison of the Australian and Norwegian publication-based funding models

Author

Listed:
  • Jesper W. Schneider
  • Kaare Aagaard
  • Carter W. Bloch

Abstract

The experiences from Australia where undifferentiated publication counts were linked to funding of universities in 1993 is well known. Publication activity increased, but the largest increase was in lower-impact journals, leading to a general drop in overall citation impact for Australia. The experience from Australia has been a warning for what would most likely happen if funding were linked to publication activity. Nevertheless, in 2005, a performance-based model based on differentiated publication counts was implemented in Norway. The model was specifically developed to counter adverse effects like those identified in the Australian case. In the present article, we examine ‘what happens at the aggregated level of publication and citation activity when funding is linked to differentiated publication counts’. We examine developments in Norwegian publication activity, journal publication profiles, and citation impact. We also examine developments in publication activities at the individual level and developments in research and development resource inputs. We compare experiences in Australia to those in Norway. The results show that for the Norwegian case, overall publication activity goes up, impact remains stable, and there is no indication of a deliberate displacement of journal publication activities to the lowest-impact journals. Hence, we do not see the same patterns as in Australia. We conclude that the experience in Norway with differentiated publication counts linked to funding has been different from the experience in Australia with an undifferentiated model. This is an important observation because currently the Norwegian model is being or has been adopted in several European countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesper W. Schneider & Kaare Aagaard & Carter W. Bloch, 2016. "What happens when national research funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? A comparison of the Australian and Norwegian publication-based funding models," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 244-256.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:25:y:2016:i:3:p:244-256.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvv036
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2019. "When research assessment exercises leave room for opportunistic behavior by the subjects under evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 830-840.
    2. Hladchenko, Myroslava & Moed, Henk F., 2021. "The effect of publication traditions and requirements in research assessment and funding policies upon the use of national journals in 28 post-socialist countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    3. Arnott, James C., 2021. "Pens and purse strings: Exploring the opportunities and limits to funding actionable sustainability science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    4. Przemysław Korytkowski & Emanuel Kulczycki, 2019. "Examining how country-level science policy shapes publication patterns: the case of Poland," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1519-1543, June.
    5. Thomas Zacharewicz & Benedetto Lepori & Emanuela Reale & Koen Jonkers, 2019. "Performance-based research funding in EU Member States—a comparative assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 105-115.
    6. Yashan Li & Jinge Mao & Lin Zhang & Dongbo Wang & Si Shen & Ying Huang, 2022. "How scientific research incorporates policy: an examination using the case of China’s science and technology evaluation system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5283-5306, September.
    7. Linda Sīle & Raf Vanderstraeten, 2019. "Measuring changes in publication patterns in a context of performance-based research funding systems: the case of educational research in the University of Gothenburg (2005–2014)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 71-91, January.
    8. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Myroslava Hladchenko, 2023. "Assessing the effects of publication requirements for professorship on research performance and publishing behaviour of Ukrainian academics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4589-4609, August.
    9. Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro & Ricardo Brito, 2022. "The link between countries’ economic and scientific wealth has a complex dependence on technological activity and research policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2871-2896, May.
    10. van den Besselaar, Peter & Heyman, Ulf & Sandström, Ulf, 2017. "Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler’s Australian case revisited," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 905-918.
    11. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:25:y:2016:i:3:p:244-256.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.