Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Outline of the Bibliometric Indicator Used for Performance-Based Funding of Research Institutions in Norway

  • Profession
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article outlines and discusses the bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in Norway. It is argued that the indicator is novel and innovative as compared to the indicators used in other funding models. It compares institutions based on all their publication-based research activities across all disciplines. Specific incentives are given to researchers to focus their publication behaviour on the most ‘prestigious’ publication channels within the different fields. Such aims necessitate a documentation system based on high-quality data, and require differentiated publication counts as the basic measure. Experience until now suggests that the indicator works as intended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A detailed description of the indicator, its background and development, is available in www.uhr.no/documents/Rapport_fra_UHR_prosjektet_4_11_engCJS_endelig_versjon_av_hele_oversettelsen.pdf. Most of the detailed description of the documentation system and the bibliometric indicator is based on the document.

  2. For comprehensive reviews of subjectivity and reliability issues, see Cicchetti (1991) and Langfeldt (2001), and for comparisons with bibliometric indicators, see Moed (2005).

  3. A different model is used in the remainder of Belgium.

References

  • Butler, L. (2001) Monitoring Australia's Scientific Research: Partial Indicators of Australia's Research Performance, Canberra: Australian Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. (2004) ‘What Happens When Funding is Linked to Publication Counts?’, in H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel and U. Schmoch (eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 340–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicchetti, D.V. (1991) ‘The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 119–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K. and Glänzel, W. (2004) ‘Using a bibliometric approach to support research policy making: The case of the Flemish BOF-key’, Scientometrics 59 (2): 253–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K. and Glänzel, W. (2008) ‘Evidence-based bibliometrics: A decade of bibliometrics-based science policy in Flanders’, in J. Goriaz and E. Schiebel (eds.) Book of abstracts, 10th international science and technology indicators conference, 17–20 September 2008, Austria: University of Vienna, pp. 123–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001) ‘National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship’, Scientometrics 51 (1): 69–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2008) ‘Seven myths in bibliometrics. About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies’, in H. Kretschmer and F. Havemann (eds.) Proceedings of WIS 2008, Berlin, Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics and Ninth COLLNET Meeting Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute for Library and Information Science (IBI): http://www.collnet.de/Berlin-2008/GlanzelWIS2008smb.pdf, (accessed 7 October 2008).

  • Glänzel, W. and Schoepflin, U. (1994) ‘Little scientometrics, big scientometrics … and beyond’, Scientometrics 30: 375–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. and Schubert, A. (2001) ‘Double effort=double impact? A critical view of international co-authorship in chemistry’, Scientometrics 50 (2): 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, J. and Laudel, G. (2007) ‘The Social Construction Of Bibliometric Evaluations’, in R. Whitley and J. Gläser (eds.) The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, Sociology of Sciences Yearbook 26, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 101–123.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guena, A. and Martin, B.R. (2003) ‘University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison’, Minerva 41 (4): 277–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W.K. and van del Wal, R. (2008) ‘Google scholar as a new source for citation analysis’, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8: 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (1999) ‘The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences’, Scientometrics 44 (2): 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2004) ‘The Four Literatures of Social Science’, in H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel and U. Schmoch (eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 473–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J.S. (1999) ‘Bibliometric Indicators and the Social Sciences’, Report prepared for UK Economic and Social Research Council, www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/sylvank/pubs/ESRC.pdf, (accessed 7 October 2008).

  • Kogan, M. (1989) ‘The Evaluation of Higher Education: An Introductory Note’, in M. Kogan (ed.) Evaluating Higher Education, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langfeldt, L. (2001) ‘The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome’, Social Studies of Science 31: 820–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2008) ‘Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 (2): 278–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefner, I. (2003) ‘Funding resources allocation and performance in higher education systems’, Higher Education 46: 469–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B.R. and Irvine, J. (1983) ‘Assessing basic research. Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy’, Research Policy 12: 61–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L.I. and Yang, K. (2007) ‘Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google scholar’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (13): 2105–2125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H.F. (2005) Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H.F., Burger, W.J.M., Frankfort, J.G. and Van Raan, A.F.J. (1985) ‘The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance’, Research Policy 14: 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, M.J. (1973) ‘Measures of scientific growth’, Research Policy 2: 266–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glänzel, W. and Danell, R. (2004) ‘Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies’, Scientometrics 60 (3): 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandström, U. and Sandström, E. (2007) ‘A Metrics for academic science applied to Australian Universities’, http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00011776/, (accessed 7 October 2008).

  • Sandström, U. and Sandström, E. (2008) ‘Resurser för citeringar’, Högskoleverkets rapportserie 2008:18 R, Utgiven av Högskoleverket 2008: http://forskningspolitik.se/DataFile.asp?FileID=15, (accessed 7 October 2008).

  • Sivertsen, G. (2006) ‘A bibliometric model for performance based budgeting of research institutions’, in K. Debackere and W. Glänzel (eds.) Book of abstracts, 9th international science and technology indicators conference, 7–9 September 2006, Leuven, Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit, pp. 133–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivertsen, G. (2008) ‘Experiences with a bibliometric model for performance based funding of research institutions’, in J. Goriaz and E. Schiebel (eds.) Book of abstracts, 10th international science and technology indicators conference, 17–20 September 2008, Austria: University of Vienna, pp. 126–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. (1981) ‘Citation analysis’, Library Trends 30: 83–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A.J.F. (1996) ‘Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises’, Scientometrics 36: 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A.J.F. (2000) ‘The Pandora's Box of Citation Analysis: Measuring Scientific Excellence – The Last Evil?’, in B. Cronin and H. B. Atkins (eds.) The Web of Knowledge, Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc, pp. 301–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A.F.J. (2005) ‘Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods’, Scientometrics 62 (1): 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (2005) ‘Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?’ Scientometrics 62 (1): 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (2007) ‘Changing Governance of the Public Science: The Consequences of Establishing Research Evaluation Systems for Knowledge Production in Different Countries and Scientific Fields’, in R. Whitley and J. Gläser (eds.) The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, Sociology of Sciences Yearbook 26, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 3–27.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Gunnar Sivertsen from the Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU STEP) for his kind support and his generous sharing of data and information in relation to the model and the experiences with it. The author also thanks the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal School of Library and Information Science, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7K, Aalborg, 9220, Denmark

    Jesper W Schneider

Authors
  1. Jesper W Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesper W Schneider.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schneider, J. An Outline of the Bibliometric Indicator Used for Performance-Based Funding of Research Institutions in Norway. Eur Polit Sci 8, 364–378 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2009.19

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2009.19

Keywords

Search

Navigation