Publication-based funding: The norwegian model

Research Assessment in the Humanities: Towards Criteria and Procedures

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 79-90

  Sivertsen, Gunnar ^a  

^a NORDIC INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN INNOVATION   (Norway)

Author keywords

Books; Denmark; Flanders; Humanities; Internationalization; Journals; Language; Norway; Performance indicator; Performance based funding; Publication patterns; Research assessment; Social sciences

Indexed keywords

EID: 84978198944     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_7     Document Type: Chapter

References (16)

1. Aagaard, K., Bloch, C. W., & Schneider, J. W. (2015). Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 106-117. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv003.
2. Ahlgren, P., Colliander, C., & Persson, O. (2012). Field normalized rates, field normalized journal impact and Norwegian weights for allocation of university research funds. Scientometrics, 92(3), 767-780. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0632-x.
3. Bentley, P., & Kyvik, S. (2011). Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 21(1), 48-63. doi:10. 1177/0963662510384461.
4. Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse. (2014). Evaluering af den norske publiceringsindikator. Aarhus: Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse.
5. Engels, T. C., Ossenblok, T. L., & Spruyt, E. H. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000-2009. Scientometrics, 93(2), 373-390. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2.
6. Hammarfelt, B., & de Rijcke, S. (2015). Accountability in context: Effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 63-77. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvu029.
7. Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 476-496). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Kyvik, S., & Sivertsen, G. (2013). Økende Forskningsformidling. Forskningspolitikk, 4(213), 16-17.
9. Ossenblok, T. L., Engels, T. C., & Sivertsen, G. (2012). The representation of the social sciences and humanities in theWeb of Science-a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005-9). Research Evaluation, 21(4), 280-290. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs019.
10. Schneider, J.W. (2009). An outline of the bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in Norway. European Political Science, 8(3), 364-378. doi:10.1057/eps. 2009.19.
11. Sivertsen, G. (2010). A performance indicator based on complete data for the scientific publication output at research institutions. ISSI Newsletter, 6(1), 22-28.
12. Sivertsen, G. (2014). Scholarly publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities and their coverage in Scopus and Web of Science. In E. Noyons (Ed.), Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference 2014 Leiden (pp. 598-604). Leiden: Centre for Science and Technology Studies.
13. Sivertsen, G., & Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91(2), 567-575. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0615-3.
14. Sivertsen, G., & Schneider, J. W. (2012). Evaluering av den bibliometriske forskningsindikator. Oslo: NIFU.
15. Technopolis Group. (2013). Evaluation of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the social sciences and humanities (VABB-SHW). Technopolis Group: Executive summary. Amsterdam.
16. van Leeuwen, T. (2006). The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research.Who benefits from it, andwhy it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 66(1), 133-154. doi:10. 1007/s11192-006-0010-7.