Advertisement

The International Impact of Danish Research

  • Poul Erik MouritzenEmail author
  • Niels Opstrup
Chapter
  • 110 Downloads
Part of the Public Sector Organizations book series (PSO)

Abstract

Whether it was an official goal or merely an expectation among central policymakers that the international impact of Danish research would improve with the introduction of the Bibliometric Research Indicator, it was fulfilled in only one respect: the number of Danish research articles increased considerably from 2009. But it is heroic to attribute this increase to the BRI, since it is almost equivalent to the increase in the number of university researchers—taking into consideration that the profile of research has shifted from books to articles. In all other respects, it is difficult to find evidence that supports these original hopes. In fact, a couple of years after the introduction of the BRI, the impact of Danish research started to fall slightly and consistently.

Keywords

International impact Research impact Leiden Ranking Impact factor Citation index Citation score 

Literature

  1. Aagaard, Kaare, and Jesper Schneider. 2016. “Research Funding and National Academic Performance: Examination of a Danish Success Story”. Science and Public Policy 43 (4): 518–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aagaard, Kaare, Carter Bloch, and Jesper W. Schneider. 2015. “Impacts of Performance-Based Research Funding Systems: The Case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator”. Research Evaluation 24 (2): 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aagaard, Kaare, Carter Bloch, Jesper W. Schneider, Dorte Henriksen, Thomas Kjeldager Ryan, and Per Stig Lauridsen. 2014. Evaluering af den norske publiceringsindikator. Aarhus: Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  4. Adams, Jonathan, and Karen Gurney. 2010. Funding Selectivity, Concentration and Excellence—How Good Is the UK’s Research? Higher Education Policy Institute. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/46-Funding-selectivity-concentration-and-excellence-full.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2018.
  5. Butler, Linda. 2003. “Explaining Australia’s Increased Share of ISI Publications—The Effects of a Funding Formula Based on Publication Counts”. Research Policy 32 (1): 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaway, Ewen. 2016. “Publishing Elite Turns Against Impact Factor”. Nature 535: 210–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Checchi, Danielle, Marco Malgarini, and Scipione Sarlo. 2018. “Do Performance-Based Research Funding Systems Affect Research Production and Impact?” Higher Education Quarterly 73 (1): 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glänzel, Wolfgang. 2008. “Seven Myths in Bibliometrics: About Facts and Fiction in Quantitative Science Studies”, in H. Kretschmer og F. Havemann (Eds.) Proceedings of WIS 2008, Berlin Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Ninth COLLNET Meeting Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute for Library and Information Science (IBI).Google Scholar
  9. Haustein, Stefanie, og Vincent Larivière. 2015. “The Use of Bibliometrics for Assessing Research: Possibilities, Limitations and Adverse Effects”, pp. 121–139 in Isabel Welpe, Jutta Wollersheim, Stefanie Ringelhan, og Margit Osterloh (Eds.) Incentives and Performance—Governance of Research Organizations. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Jonkers, Koen, and Thomas Zacharewicz. 2016. Research Performance Based Funding Systems: A Comparative Assessment. European Commission: JRC Science for Policy Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  11. Moed, Henk F. 2008. “UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed Judgments on Research Quality or Quantity?” Scientometric 74 (1): 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mouritzen, Poul Erik, Niels Opstrup, and Pernille Bak Pedersen. 2018. En fremmed kommer til byen. Ti år med den bibliometriske forskningsindikator. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  13. Öquist, Gunnar, and Mats Benner. 2015. “Why Are Some Nations More Successful Than Others in Research Impact? A Comparison Between Denmark and Sweden”, pp. 241–257 in Isabel Welpe, Jutta Wollersheim, Stefanie Ringelhan, and Margit Osterloh (Eds.) Incentives and Performance—Governance of Research Organizations. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Quan, Wei, Bikun Chen, and Fei Shu. 2017. “Publish or impoverish: An Investigation of the Monetary Reward System of Science in China (1999–2016)”. Aslib Journal of Information Management 69 (5): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schneider, Jesper W., Kaare Aagaard, and Carter Bloch. 2016. “What Happens When National Research Funding Is Linked to Differentiated Publication Counts? A Comparison of the Australian and Norwegian Publication-based Funding Model”. Research Evaluation 25 (3): 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Styrelsen for Forskning og Uddannelse. 2018. Forskningsbarometer 2018 Årlig statistik og analyse om forskning og innovation. https://ufm.dk/publikationer/2018/filer/forskningsbarometer-2018.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2018.
  17. Weingart, Peter. 2005. “Impact of Bibliometrics upon the Science System: Inadvertent Consequences?” Scientometrics 62 (1): 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Political Science and Public ManagementUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations