IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/9yq38.html

Incentivising, excluding, and enduring: The policy dynamics of quantitative research assessment in Lithuania

Author

Listed:
  • Dagiene, Eleonora

    (Mykolas Romeris University)

  • Larivière, Vincent
  • Dix, Guus
  • Waltman, Ludo

Abstract

Performance-based funding systems have significantly impacted the research systems in many countries. This study examines the evolution of the performance-based funding system in Lithuania. Using a multi-level, multi-actor, and multi-issue approach, we investigate how various actors influenced policy choices and outcomes. Through a combination of policy analysis, interviews, and bibliometric analysis, we explore tensions between international aspirations and domestic realities, the interplay between national policies and publishing behaviour, and challenges of metrics-based research assessment. Our findings reveal how the dominant role of scientific elites at all levels of governance had both intended outcomes (increase in publications in general and international publications in particular) and unintended consequences (proliferation of institutional journals and strategic publishing practices). Our study provides insights for policymakers and stakeholders seeking to develop effective and sustainable policies amidst calls for research assessment reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Dagiene, Eleonora & Larivière, Vincent & Dix, Guus & Waltman, Ludo, 2024. "Incentivising, excluding, and enduring: The policy dynamics of quantitative research assessment in Lithuania," SocArXiv 9yq38, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:9yq38
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/9yq38
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/66d3727c037f20be88df7291/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/9yq38?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Whitley, Richard, 2016. "Varieties of scientific knowledge and their contributions to dealing with policy problems: A response to Richard Nelson’s “The sciences are different and the differences matter”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1702-1707.
    3. Kaare Aagaard, 2015. "How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 725-737.
    4. Ian McNay, 2003. "Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the UK Research Assessment Exercise, 2001, and its outcomes, with special reference to research in education," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 47-54, February.
    5. Katharine Barker, 2007. "The UK Research Assessment Exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 3-12, March.
    6. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    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. Dagiene, Eleonora & Aibar, Eduard, 2025. "Publishing infrastructures in the semi-periphery: How research assessment shapes the research output of Spain and Lithuania," SocArXiv ucgzm_v1, Center for Open Science.

    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. repec:osf:socarx:9yq38_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Giliberto Capano & Benedetto Lepori, 2024. "Designing policies that could work: understanding the interaction between policy design spaces and organizational responses in public sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 53-82, March.
    3. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    4. Daniella Bayle Deutz & Thea Marie Drachen & Dorte Drongstrup & Niels Opstrup & Charlotte Wien, 2021. "Quantitative quality: a study on how performance-based measures may change the publication patterns of Danish researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3303-3320, April.
    5. Smith, Simon & Ward, Vicky & House, Allan, 2011. "‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK's Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1369-1379.
    6. Tharapos, Meredith & Marriott, Neil, 2020. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Research quality in accounting education," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    7. Francesco Giovanni Avallone & Alberto Quagli & Paola Ramassa, 2022. "Interdisciplinary research by accounting scholars: An exploratory study," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2022(2), pages 5-34.
    8. Sarah de Rijcke & Paul F. Wouters & Alex D. Rushforth & Thomas P. Franssen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2016. "Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 161-169.
    9. Alberto Anfossi & Alberto Ciolfi & Filippo Costa & Giorgio Parisi & Sergio Benedetto, 2016. "Large-scale assessment of research outputs through a weighted combination of bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 671-683, May.
    10. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 9447, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    11. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    12. Emanuel Kulczycki & Raf Guns & Janne Pölönen & Tim C. E. Engels & Ewa A. Rozkosz & Alesia A. Zuccala & Kasper Bruun & Olli Eskola & Andreja Istenič Starčič & Michal Petr & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2020. "Multilingual publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A seven‐country European study," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(11), pages 1371-1385, November.
    13. Daniella B Deutz & Evgenios Vlachos & Dorte Drongstrup & Bertil F Dorch & Charlotte Wien, 2020. "Effective publication strategies in clinical research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    14. Stefano Bianchini & Francesco Lissoni & Michele Pezzoni & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2016. "The economics of research, consulting, and teaching quality: theory and evidence from a technical university," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(7), pages 668-691, October.
    15. Degl’Innocenti, Marta & Matousek, Roman & Tzeremes, Nickolaos G., 2019. "The interconnections of academic research and universities’ “third mission”: Evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    16. Bagues, Manuel & Sylos-Labini, Mauro & Zinovyeva, Natalia, 2019. "A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 462-477.
    17. Carmen Osuna & Laura Cruz Castro & Luis Sanz Menéndez, 2010. "Knocking down some Assumptions about the Effects of Evaluation Systems on Publications," Working Papers 1010, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    18. Kevin Riehl, 2025. "On the scientometric value of full-text, beyond abstracts and titles: evidence from the business and economic literature," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 2459-2513, September.
    19. Ralf C Buckley, 2022. "Stakeholder controls and conflicts in research funding and publication," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-8, March.
    20. Irene Sala & Maurizio Sobrero, 2021. "Games of policy and practice: multi-level dynamics and the role of universities in knowledge transfer processes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 866-906, August.
    21. Wang, Derek D., 2019. "Performance-based resource allocation for higher education institutions in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 66-75.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:9yq38. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.