What happens when national research funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? A comparison of the Australian and Norwegian publication-based funding models

Abstract

The experiences from Australia where undifferentiated publication counts were linked to funding of universities in 1993 is well known. Publication activity increased, but the largest increase was in lower-impact journals, leading to a general drop in overall citation impact for Australia. The experience from Australia has been a warning for what would most likely happen if funding were linked to publication activity. Nevertheless, in 2005, a performance-based model based on differentiated publication counts was implemented in Norway. The model was specifically developed to counter adverse effects like those identified in the Australian case. In the present article, we examine ‘what happens at the aggregated level of publication and citation activity when funding is linked to differentiated publication counts’. We examine developments in Norwegian publication activity, journal publication profiles, and citation impact. We also examine developments in publication activities at the individual level and developments in research and development resource inputs. We compare experiences in Australia to those in Norway. The results show that for the Norwegian case, overall publication activity goes up, impact remains stable, and there is no indication of a deliberate displacement of journal publication activities to the lowest-impact journals. Hence, we do not see the same patterns as in Australia. We conclude that the experience in Norway with differentiated publication counts linked to funding has been different from the experience in Australia with an undifferentiated model. This is an important observation because currently the Norwegian model is being or has been adopted in several European countries.