uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • 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
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Network Institute.
Uppsala University, University Administration, Planning Division.
KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
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
2017. Vol. 11, no 3, p. 905-918
National Category
Computer Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-335756DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.016ISI: 000410528900031OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-335756DiVA, id: diva2:1163920
Funder
Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, P12-1302:1Available from: 2017-12-08 Created: 2017-12-08 Last updated: 2018-01-13Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Heyman, Ulf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Heyman, Ulf
By organisation
Planning Division
In the same journal
Journal of Informetrics
Computer Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 20 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • 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