IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i2p186-198..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentivizing research collaboration using performance-based reward systems

Author

Listed:
  • Do Han Kim
  • Hee-Je Bak

Abstract

Despite a growing interest in research collaboration, few studies have examined the influences of policy measures on collaboration practices and on the scientific outcome of the research. By analyzing individual-level panel data of researchers in humanities and social sciences in a Korean university, the present study shows that adopting a partial discount system for the number of coauthors, which has been designed in such a way as to reward coauthored publications, could redirect researchers’ attention away from working alone to collaborating with others, as proposed by advocates of team-based incentives in principal–agent theory. In addition, the present study shows that, although collaboration was positively correlated with the impact factors of the journal and the total number of publications, the fractional count of publications, which divides the number of publications by the number of authors, showed a negative relationship with participation in collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Do Han Kim & Hee-Je Bak, 2017. "Incentivizing research collaboration using performance-based reward systems," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 186-198.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:2:p:186-198.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw050
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chung, Kee H. & Cox, Raymond A.K. & Kim, Kenneth A., 2009. "On the relation between intellectual collaboration and intellectual output: Evidence from the finance academe," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 893-916, August.
    2. Liebowitz, S J & Palmer, J P, 1984. "Assessing the Relative Impacts of Economic Journals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 77-88, March.
    3. Butler, Linda, 2003. "Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications--the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 143-155, January.
    4. McDowell, John M & Melvin, Michael, 1983. "The Determinants of Co-Authorship: An Analysis of the Economics Literature," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 65(1), pages 155-160, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Marjan Cugmas & Franc Mali & Aleš Žiberna, 2020. "Scientific collaboration of researchers and organizations: a two-level blockmodeling approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2471-2489, December.
    2. Hugo Horta & Shihui Feng & João M. Santos, 2022. "Homophily in higher education research: a perspective based on co-authorships," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 523-543, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stan J. Liebowitz, 2014. "Willful Blindness: The Inefficient Reward Structure In Academic Research," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(4), pages 1267-1283, October.
    2. Önder, Ali Sina & Schweitzer, Sascha & Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2021. "Specialization, field distance, and quality in economists’ collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    3. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Francisco Serranito, 2015. "Co-Authorship And Individual Research Productivity In Economics: Assessing The Assortative Matching Hypothesis," CEPN Working Papers halshs-01252373, HAL.
    4. Damien Besancenot & Kim Van Huynh & Francisco Serranito, 2015. " Thou shalt not work alone ," CEPN Working Papers hal-01175758, HAL.
    5. Laband, David N. & Piette, Michael J., 1995. "Team production in economics: division of labor or mentoring?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 33-40, March.
    6. Ali Sina Önder & Sascha Schweitzer & Hakan Yilmazkuday, 2021. "Field Distance and Quality in Economists’ Collaborations," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2021-04, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    7. Francis Bidault & Thomas Hildebrand, 2012. "The distribution of partnerships benefits: Evidence from co-authorships in economics journals," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-12-08, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
    8. Hilmer, Christiana E. & Hilmer, Michael J., 2004. "On The Return To Journal Quality, Coauthorship And Author Order Within Top Ranked Agricultural Economics Programs," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20179, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Enrico Miersch, 2020. "Research Evaluation of Financial Research - Evidence from a Survey," Credit and Capital Markets, Credit and Capital Markets, vol. 53(3), pages 383-419.
    10. Mixon, Franklin Jr., 1997. "Team production in economics: A comment and extension," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 185-191, June.
    11. Hollis, Aidan, 2001. "Co-authorship and the output of academic economists," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 503-530, September.
    12. Marshall H. Medoff, 2007. "The Input Relationship Between Co‐Authors in Economics: A Production Function Approach," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 289-308, April.
    13. Bidault, Francis & Hildebrand, Thomas, 2014. "The distribution of partnership returns: Evidence from co-authorships in economics journals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1002-1013.
    14. Besancenot, Damien & Huynh, Kim & Serranito, Francisco, 2017. "Co-authorship and research productivity in economics: Assessing the assortative matching hypothesis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 61-80.
    15. Katja Rost & Bruno S. Frey, 2011. "Quantitative and Qualitative Rankings of Scholars," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 63(1), pages 63-91, January.
    16. József Popp & Péter Balogh & Judit Oláh & Sebastian Kot & Mónika Harangi Rákos & Péter Lengyel, 2018. "Social Network Analysis of Scientific Articles Published by Food Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Katharina Rath & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2016. "Recent trends in co-authorship in economics: evidence from RePEc," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(12), pages 897-902, August.
    18. Jean Heck & Peter Zaleski, 2006. "The most frequent contributors to the elite economics journals: Half century of contributions to the “Blue ribbon eight”," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 30(1), pages 1-37, March.
    19. Pantelis Kalaitzidakis & Theofanis P. Mamuneas & Thanasis Stengos, 2011. "An updated ranking of academic journals in economics," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1525-1538, November.
    20. Melody Lo & M. C. Sunny Wong & Franklin G. Mixon, 2008. "Ranking Economics Journals, Economics Departments, and Economists Using Teaching‐Focused Research Productivity," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 74(3), pages 894-906, January.

    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:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:2:p:186-198.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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/spp .

    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.