Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler's Australian case revisited
KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM), Industrial Economics and Management (Dept.), Sustainability and Industrial Dynamics.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1292-8239
2017 (English)In: Journal of Informetrics, ISSN 1751-1577, E-ISSN 1875-5879, Vol. 11, no 3, p. 905-918Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

More than ten years ago, Linda Butler (2003a) published a well-cited article claiming that the Australian science policy in the early 1990s made a mistake by introducing output based funding. According to Butler, the policy stimulated researchers to publish more but at the same time less good papers, resulting in lower total impact of Australian research compared to other countries. We redo and extend the analysis using longer time series, and show that Butlers’ main conclusions are not correct. We conclude in this paper (i) that the currently available data reject Butler’s claim that “journal publication productivity has increased significantly… but its impact has declined”, and (ii) that it is hard to find such evidence also with a reconstruction of her data. On the contrary, after implementing evaluation systems and performance based funding, Australia not only improved its share of research output but also increased research quality, implying that total impact was greatly increased. Our findings show that if output based research funding has an effect on research quality, it is positive and not negative. This finding has implications for the discussions about research evaluation and about assumed perverse effects of incentives, as in those debates the Australian case plays a major role.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2017. Vol. 11, no 3, p. 905-918
Keywords [en]
Publication Counts, Citation Analysis, Impact, Performance, Indicators, Quantity
National Category
Information Studies
Research subject
Industrial Economics and Management
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-214064DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.016ISI: 000410528900031Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85023638982OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-214064DiVA, id: diva2:1140115
Funder
Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, P12-1302:1
Note

QC 20171010

Available from: 2017-09-11 Created: 2017-09-11 Last updated: 2017-11-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(3567 kB)0 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 3567 kBChecksum SHA-512
f64e95b8bb2d7028d54701e6946b90c82a0b2dcc601f09161be5e625ddbda9dbb07d919e0633fc390c103fd91ec47c82191831333863f09c49e01f1b6b41f893
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sandström, Ulf
By organisation
Sustainability and Industrial Dynamics
In the same journal
Journal of Informetrics
Information Studies

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 31 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf