Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers

Scientometrics

Volumn 116, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 2053-2068

  Demir, Selcuk Besir ^a  

^a CUMHURIYET UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Academic productivity; Ex post funding; Incentive policy; Potentially fake journals; Questionable conferences

Indexed keywords

EID: 85049561594     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2833-4     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Aagaard, K., Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2015). Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 106–117. 10.1093/reseval/rvv003
2. Aboal, D., & Tacsir, E. (2017). The impact of subsidies on researcher’s productivity: Evidence from a developing country. Research Evaluation, 26(4), 269–283. 10.1093/reseval/rvx031
3. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C. M., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2010). The governance and performance of universities: Evidence from Europe and the US. Economic Policy, 25(61), 7–59. 10.3386/w14851
4. Andersen, L. B., & Pallesen, T. (2008). “Not just for the money?” How financial incentives affect the number of publications at Danish research institutions. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 28–47. 10.1080/10967490801887889
5. Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance-an international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822–834. 10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.003
6. Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Retrieved from http://ssau.ru:8080/files/science/crpd/CriteriaBillPublishers2015.pdf
7. Beall, J. (2018). Potential predatory scholarly open-access journals. Retrieved from https://beallslist.weebly.com
8. Bence & Oppenheim. (2005). The evolution of the UK’s research assessment exercise: publications, performance and perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 37(2), 137–155. 10.1080/00220620500211189
9. Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall’s list better understanding predatory publishers. College & Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132–135
10. Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2016). Performance-based funding models and researcher behavior: An analysis of the influence of the Norwegian Publication Indicator at the individual level. Research Evaluation, 25(4), 371–382. 10.1093/reseval/rvv047
11. Bonaccorsi, A., & Secondi, L. (2017). The determinants of research performance in European universities: a large scale multilevel analysis. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1147–1178. 10.1007/s111
12. Bourdien, P. (1990). Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press
13. Bowles, P. (2013). Capitalism. Milton Park: Routledege
14. Butler, L. (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. 10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00007-0
15. Butler, L. (2004). What happens when funding is linked to publication counts? In H. F. Moed, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 389–405). Dordrecht: Kluwer
16. Butler, L. (2017). Response to van den Besselaar et al.: What happens when the Australian context is misunderstood. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 919–922. 10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.017
17. Chudnovsky, D., Lopez, A., Rossi, M. A., & Ubfal, D. (2008). Money for science? The impact of research grants in Argentina. IDB working paper series: 224. Inter-American Development Bank
18. Colugnati, F., Firpo, S., de Castro, P. F., Sepulveda, J. E., & Salles-Filho, S. (2014). A propensity score approach in the impact evaluation on scientific production in Brazilian biodiversity research: The BIOTA Program. Scientometrics, 101(1), 85–107. 10.1007/s11192-014-1397-1
19. Council of Higher Education (CoHE, 2015) The Republic of Turkey, regulation on the academic incentive allowance. Turkish Official Journal. 18 December 2015. Retrieved from http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2015/12/20151218.htm&main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2015/12/20151218.htm
20. Council of Higher Education (CoHE, 2016). The Republic of Turkey, regulation on the academic incentive allowance. Turkish Official Journal. 31 December 2016. Retrieved from http://yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/30318223/Akademik_Tesvik_Odenegi_Yonetmeligi_31_12_2016_Resmi_Gazete_Yayin_Tarihi.pdf
21. Council of Higher Education (CoHE, 2017). Council of higher education statistics. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
22. Crawford, W. (2014a). Ethics and access 1: The sad case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites & Insights, 14(4), 1–14
23. Crawford, W. (2014b). Journals, journals and wannabes: Investigating the list. Cites & Insights, 14(7), 1–24
24. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
25. De Boer, H., Jongbloed, B. W. A., Benneworth, S., Cremonini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A., et al. (2015). Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems. Enschede: University of Twente
26. European Commission (2010). Assessing Europe’s university-based research. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2oNukmM
27. Fedderke, J. W., & Goldschmidt, M. (2015). Does massive funding support of researchers work? Evaluating the impact of the South African research chair funding initiative. Research Policy, 44(2), 467–482. 10.1016/j.respol.2014.09.009
28. Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2011). Changing incentives to publish. Science, 333(6043), 702–703. 10.1126/science.1197286
29. Geuna, A., & Martin, B. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277–304. 10.1023/B:MINE.0000005155.70870.bd
30. Good, B., Vermeulen, N., Tiefenthaler, B., & Arnold, E. (2015). Counting quality? The Czech performance-based research funding system. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 91–105. 10.1093/reseval/rvu035
31. Gorman, P. (2003). Motivation and emotion. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203694978
32. Heywood, J. S., Wei, X., & Ye, G. (2011). Piece rates for professors. Economics Letters, 113(3), 285–287. 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.08.005
33. Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261. 10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007
34. Himanen, L., Auranen, O., Puuska, H.-M., & ve Nieminen, M. (2009). Influence of research funding and science policy on university research performance: A comparison of five countries. Science and Public Policy, 36(6), 419–430. 10.3152/030234209x461006
35. Iqbal, M. Z., & Mahmood, A. (2011). Factors related to low research productivity at higher education level. Asian Social Science, 7(2), 188–193. 10.5539/ass.v7n2p188
36. Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1168–1177. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.005
37. Jiménez-Contreras, E., De-Moya-Anegón, F., & Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain: the impact of the National Commission for Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy, 32(1), 123–142. 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00008-2
38. Jung, J. (2014). Research productivity by career stage among Korean academics. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(2), 85–105. 10.1080/13583883.2014.889206
39. Kameny, F. (1998). Authors with deep pockets: The ethics of subsidies. Journal of Scholarly Publıshıng, 29(2), 65–70
40. Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing. 10.1002/leap.1150
41. Kyvik, S., & Aksnes, D. W. (2015). Explaining the increase in publication productivity among academic staff: A generational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 40(8), 1438–1453. 10.1080/03075079.2015.1060711
42. Laming, D. (2004). Understanding human motivation: What makes people tick?. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470773383.ch16
43. Moed, H. F. (2008). UK Research assessment exercises: Informed judgements on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74(1), 153–161. 10.1007/s11192-008-0108-1
44. Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative & quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120–123. 10.1097/00006199-199103000-00014
45. Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11, 538–550
46. Osuna, C., Cruz-Castro, L., & ve Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance. Scientometrics, 86(3), 575–592. 10.1007/s11192-010-0312-7
47. Quimbo, M. A. T., & Sulabo, E. C. (2014). Research productivity and its policy implications in higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1955–1971. 10.1080/03075079.2013.818639
48. Rijcke, S. D., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—A literature review. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 161–169. 10.1093/reseval/rvv038
49. Roth, D. (2017). Questionable conferences: Questionable conferences. Retrieved from (https://libguides.caltech.edu/c.php?g=512665&p=3503029)
50. Sandnes, F. E. (2018). Do Norwegian academics who publish more earn higher salaries? Scientometrics, 114(1), 1–19. 10.1007/s11192-018-2639-4
51. 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. 10.1057/eps.2009.19
52. Schneider, J. W., Aagaard, K., & Bloch, C. W. (2016). What happens when funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? New insights from an evaluation of the Norwegian publication model. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 244–256. 10.1093/reseval/rvv036
53. Springer, S., Birch, K., & MacLeavy, J. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of neoliberalism. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315730660
54. Stephan, P. (2010). The economics of science. In B. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 217–273). North-Holland: Elsevier
55. Stoyanov, S. (2017). A theory of human motivation. London: Macat Library. 10.4324/9781912282517
56. Suo, Q. (2016). Chinese academic assessment and incentive system. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 297–299. 10.1007/s11948-015-9643-3
57. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017). Does China need to rethink its metrics- and citations-based research reward policies? Scientometrics, 112(3), 1853–1857. 10.1007/s11192-017-2430-y
58. Tonta, Y. (2017). TÜBİTAK Türkiye adresli uluslararasi bilimsel yayinlari teşvik (UBYT) programinin değerlendirilmesi. Ankara: TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM. Retrieved from http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~tonta/yayinlar/tonta-tubitak-ubyt-programinin-degerlendirilmesi.pdf
59. Tonta, Y. (2018). Does monetary support increase the number of scientific papers? An interrupted time series analysis. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(1), 19–39. 10.2478/jdis-2018-0002
60. Turkish Statistical Institute [TurkStat] (2018) Research-development activities research. Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1082
61. van den Besselaar, P., Heyman, U., & Sandström, U. (2017). Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler’s Australian case revisited. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 905–918. 10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.016
62. Yoem, M. (2015). Limitations and possibilities of evaluation-based higher education reform in South Korea. In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on education and educational technologies (pp. 135–141). Retrieved from http://www.inase.org/library/2013/rhodes/bypaper/EET/EET-17.pdf
63. Yuret, T. (2017). Do researchers pay attention to publication subsidies? Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 423–434. 10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.010