What Happens When Funding is Linked to Publication Counts?
Many countries are placing a greater emphasis on public accountability for government research funding and are starting to use quantitative performance indicators for the distribution of funds. In Australian universities the use of quantitative formulas to allocate the research component of university block grants to institutions has been in place for a decade, and thus the system provides fertile ground for using bibliometrics to examine the effects of such policies on academic output. An analysis of Australian data from the Institute for Scientific Information’s major citation indexes clearly demonstrates the academic response to the linking of funds, at least in part, to productivity measures undifferentiated by any measure of quality — publication numbers jumped dramatically, with the highest percentage increase in the lower impact journals. The trends were apparent across all fields of research in the university sector, but were not present in other sectors active in research (such as hospitals or government research agencies). The trends were not, however, uniform across all institutions.
KeywordsPublication Output High Education Research Publication Count Funding Formula Postgraduate Award
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- OECD. (1997). The evaluation of scientific research: selected experiences. Paris: OCDE/GD(97) 194.Google Scholar
- Jiménez-Contreras, E., Anegón, F.M., López-Cózar, E.D. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain: the impact of the National Commission for Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEIA). Research Policy, 32 (1), 123–142.Google Scholar
- Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature, 415, 726–729.Google Scholar
- Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC). (2002). Time series data relating to DEST higher education research data collection (http://www.avcc.edu.au/australias_unis/statistics/research/index.htm).
- Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2002a): (http://www.detya.gov.au/highered/research/index.htm#funding.
- Guena, A., Martin, B.R. (2003). University Research Evaluation and funding: an international comparison. Minerva, 41 (4), 277–304. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/publications/imprint/sewps/sewp71.html.Google Scholar
- Department of Employment Education and Training. (1996). Higher education report for the 1996 to 1998 triennium. Canberra.Google Scholar
- Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (2000). Higher education report for the 2000 to 2002 triennium. Canberra.Google Scholar
- Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2002b). Higher education report for the 2002 to 2004 triennium. Canberra.Google Scholar
- Butler, L. (2001a). Monitoring Australia’s scientific research. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science, 20.Google Scholar
- Anderson, D., Johnson, R., Milligan, B. (1996). Performance-based funding of universities. Canberra: Commissioned Report No. 51, National Board of Employment Education and Training.Google Scholar
- Kemp, D. (1999a). New knowledge, new opportunities. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
- Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (1999). Characteristics and performance indicators of higher education institutions 1999, http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/statistics/characteristics/30_researchquantum.htm.
- AVCC. (1999). Discussion paper on higher education research and research training. Canberra: AVCC.Google Scholar
- Kemp, D. (1999b). Knowledge and Innovation. Canberra: DETYA.Google Scholar
- Butler, L. (2001b). Monitoring Australia’s Scientific Research. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science, p.11.Google Scholar
- Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2002c). Setting firm foundations: financing Australian higher education. Canberra: DEST.Google Scholar
- DEST. Evaluation of knowledge and innovation reforms: issues paper. http://www.detya.gov.au/highered/ki_reforms/issues_paper.rtf.
- Butler, L. (2003). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12 (1), 39–46.Google Scholar