Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective

Palgrave Communications

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Sivertsen, Gunnar ^a  

^a NIFU Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85073500422     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20551045     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2017.78     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Aagaard K, Bloch CW, Schneider JW, Henriksen D, Lauridsen PS and Ryan TK (2014) Evaluation of the Norwegian Publication Indicator (in Danish). Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions: Oslo.
2. Aagaard K (2015) How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system. Science and Public Policy; 42 (5): 725–737.
3. Aagaard K, Bloch CW and Schneider JW (2015) Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian publication indicator. Research Evaluation; 24 (2): 106–117.
4. Ahlgren P, Colliander C and Persson O (2012) Field normalized citation rates, field normalized journal impact and Norwegian weights for allocation of university research funds. Scientometrics; 92 (3): 767–780.
5. Arnold E, Mahieu B and Carlberg M (2012) Evaluation of the Research Council of Norway. Background Report No 2-RCN. Organisation and Governance Technopolis: Brighton.
6. Bloch C and Schneider JW (2016) Performance-based funding models and researcher behavior: An analysis of the influence of the Norwegian Publication level at the individual level. Research Evaluation; 25 (4): 371–382.
7. Butler L (2010) Impacts of Performance-based Research Funding Systems: A Review of the Concerns and the Evidence, in OECD, Performance-based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions: Workshop Proceedings. OECD Publishing: Paris.
8. Dahler-Larsen P (2014) Constitutive effects of performance indicators. Public Management Review; 16 (7): 969–986.
9. De Rijcke S, Wouters PF, Rushforth AD, Franssen TP and Hammarfelt B (2016) Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review. Research Evaluation; 25 (2): 161–169.
10. Geuna A and Martin BR (2003) University research evaluation and funding: an international comparison. Minerva; 41 (4): 277–304.
11. Geuna A and Piolatto M (2016) Research assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth it (at least for a while). Research Policy; 45 (1): 260–271.
12. Hicks D (2012) Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy; 41 (2): 251–261.
13. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de Rijcke S and Rafols I (2015) Bibliometrics: The Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature; 520 (7548): 429–431.
14. Jonkers K and Zacharewicz T (2016) Research Performance Based Funding Systems: a Comparative Assessment. doi:10.2791/659483.
15. Kulczycki E (2017) Assessing publications through a bibliometric indicator: The case of comprehensive evaluation of scientific units in Poland. Research Evaluation; 26 (1): 41–52.
16. Larivière V and Costas R (2016) How many is too many? On the relationship between research productivity and impact. PLoS ONE; 11 (9): e0162709. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162709.
17. Ossenblok T, Engels T and Sivertsen G (2012) The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science—a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005–9). Research Evaluation; 21 (4): 280–290.
18. Schneider JW (2009) An outline of the bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in Norway. European Political Science; 8 (3): 364–378.
19. Schneider JW, Aagaard K and Bloch CW (2015) What happens when national research funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? A comparison of the Australian and Norwegian publication-based funding models. Research Evaluation; 25 (3): 244–256.
20. Sivertsen G (2016) Publication-based funding: The Norwegian model. In: Ochsner M, Hug SE and Daniel HD (eds). Research Assessment in the Humanities: Towards Criteria and Procedures. Springer Open: Zürich, pp 79–90.
21. Stern N (2016) Research Excellence Framework (REF) review: Building on success and learning from experience. Ref: IND/16/9. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.
22. Swedish Government. (2016) Regeringens Proposition 2016/17:50. Kunskap i samverkan—för samhällets utmaningar och stärkt konkurrenskraft.
23. Swedish Research Council. (2015) Research Quality Evaluation in Sweden - Fokus: Report of a Government Commission regarding a Model for Resource Allocation to Universities and University Colleges Involving Peer Review of the Quality and Relevance of Research. Swedish Research Council: Stockholm.
24. Wilsdon J et al. (2015) The Metric Tide: The Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.
25. Wouters P et al. (2015) The Metric Tide: Literature Review. HEFCE. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.5066.3520.