[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v11y2017i1p282-298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward an excellence-based research funding system: Evidence from Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Kulczycki, Emanuel
  • Korzeń, Marcin
  • Korytkowski, Przemysław
Abstract
This article discusses the metrics used in the national research evaluation in Poland of the period 2009–2012. The Polish system uses mostly parametric assessments to make the evaluation more objective and independent from its peers. We have analysed data on one million research outcomes and assessment results of 962 scientific units in the period 2009–2012. Our study aims to determine how much data the research funding system needs to proceed with evaluation. We have used correlation analysis, multivariate logistic regressions models and decision trees to show which metrics of the evaluation played a major role in the final results. Our analysis revealed that many metrics taken into account in the evaluation are closely correlated. We have found that in the Polish system, not all the collected data are necessary to achieve the main goal of the system, namely the categorization of scientific units in terms of their research performance. Our findings highlight the fact that there is a high correlation between performance in terms of publications and the scientific potential of a given scientific unit. We conclude with recommendations and a suggestion of a transition from a system in which the scientific units report all their metrics to a system in which they show only the most important metrics that meet the requirements of excellence in research.

Suggested Citation

  • Kulczycki, Emanuel & Korzeń, Marcin & Korytkowski, Przemysław, 2017. "Toward an excellence-based research funding system: Evidence from Poland," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 282-298.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:282-298
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.01.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157716302231
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2017.01.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaare Aagaard & Carter Bloch & Jesper W. Schneider, 2015. "Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 106-117.
    2. Vanclay, Jerome K., 2011. "An evaluation of the Australian Research Council's journal ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 265-274.
    3. Sarah de Rijcke & Paul F. Wouters & Alex D. Rushforth & Thomas P. Franssen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2016. "Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 161-169.
    4. Antonio Ferrara & Andrea Bonaccorsi, 2016. "How robust is journal rating in Humanities and Social Sciences? Evidence from a large-scale, multi-method exercise," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 279-291.
    5. Alessio Ancaiani & Alberto F. Anfossi & Anna Barbara & Sergio Benedetto & Brigida Blasi & Valentina Carletti & Tindaro Cicero & Alberto Ciolfi & Filippo Costa & Giovanna Colizza & Marco Costantini & F, 2015. "Evaluating scientific research in Italy: The 2004–10 research evaluation exercise," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 242-255.
    6. Barbara Good & Niki Vermeulen & Brigitte Tiefenthaler & Erik Arnold, 2015. "Counting quality? The Czech performance-based research funding system," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 91-105.
    7. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Evaluating university research: Same performance indicator, different rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 514-525.
    8. Thed N. Van Leeuwen & Martijn S. Visser & Henk F. Moed & Ton J. Nederhof & Anthony F. J. Van Raan, 2003. "The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(2), pages 257-280, June.
    9. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    10. Kaare Aagaard, 2015. "How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 725-737.
    11. Koen Jonkers & Thomas Zacharewicz, 2016. "Research Performance Based Funding Systems: a Comparative Assessment," JRC Research Reports JRC101043, Joint Research Centre.
    12. Saarela, Mirka & Kärkkäinen, Tommi & Lahtonen, Tommi & Rossi, Tuomo, 2016. "Expert-based versus citation-based ranking of scholarly and scientific publication channels," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 693-718.
    13. Gaby Haddow & Paul Genoni, 2010. "Citation analysis and peer ranking of Australian social science journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 471-487, November.
    14. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    15. Caroline S. Wagner, 2005. "Six case studies of international collaboration in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 3-26, January.
    16. Campbell, Donald T., 1979. "Assessing the impact of planned social change," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 67-90, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Csomós, György, 2020. "Introducing recalibrated academic performance indicators in the evaluation of individuals’ research performance: A case study from Eastern Europe," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    2. Hladchenko, Myroslava & Moed, Henk F., 2021. "The effect of publication traditions and requirements in research assessment and funding policies upon the use of national journals in 28 post-socialist countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    3. Anna Maria Górska & Karolina Kulicka & Zuzanna Staniszewska & Dorota Dobija, 2021. "Deepening inequalities: What did COVID‐19 reveal about the gendered nature of academic work?," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 1546-1561, July.
    4. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3543-3575, June.
    5. Renata Kudaibergenova & Sandugash Uzakbay & Asselya Makanova & Kymbat Ramadinkyzy & Erlan Kistaubayev & Ruslan Dussekeev & Kadyrzhan Smagulov, 2022. "Managing publication change at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 453-479, January.
    6. Kwiek, Marek & Roszka, Wojciech, 2021. "Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    7. Saarela, Mirka & Kärkkäinen, Tommi, 2020. "Can we automate expert-based journal rankings? Analysis of the Finnish publication indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    8. Fernandez Martinez, Roberto & Lostado Lorza, Ruben & Santos Delgado, Ana Alexandra & Piedra, Nelson, 2021. "Use of classification trees and rule-based models to optimize the funding assignment to research projects: A case study of UTPL," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    9. Alberto Baccini & Lucio Barabesi & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2020. "On the agreement between bibliometrics and peer review: Evidence from the Italian research assessment exercises," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-28, November.
    10. Marek Kwiek, 2020. "Internationalists and locals: international research collaboration in a resource-poor system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 57-105, July.
    11. Przemysław Korytkowski & Emanuel Kulczycki, 2019. "Examining how country-level science policy shapes publication patterns: the case of Poland," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1519-1543, June.
    12. Emanuel Kulczycki & Tim C. E. Engels & Janne Pölönen & Kasper Bruun & Marta Dušková & Raf Guns & Robert Nowotniak & Michal Petr & Gunnar Sivertsen & Andreja Istenič Starčič & Alesia Zuccala, 2018. "Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 463-486, July.
    13. György Csomós & Jenő Zsolt Farkas, 2023. "Understanding the increasing market share of the academic publisher “Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute” in the publication output of Central and Eastern European countries: a case study o," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 803-824, January.
    14. Muhammad Dimyati & Adhi Indra Hermanu, 2023. "Evaluating Research Efficiency in Indonesian Higher Education Institution," Evaluation Review, , vol. 47(2), pages 155-181, April.
    15. Ebadi, Ashkan & Tremblay, Stéphane & Goutte, Cyril & Schiffauerova, Andrea, 2020. "Application of machine learning techniques to assess the trends and alignment of the funded research output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    16. Korytkowski, Przemyslaw & Kulczycki, Emanuel, 2019. "Publication counting methods for a national research evaluation exercise," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 804-816.
    17. Marek Kwiek, 2018. "High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems: Who are the top performers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 415-462, April.
    18. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Emanuela Reale, 2019. "Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 537-554, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Renata Kudaibergenova & Sandugash Uzakbay & Asselya Makanova & Kymbat Ramadinkyzy & Erlan Kistaubayev & Ruslan Dussekeev & Kadyrzhan Smagulov, 2022. "Managing publication change at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 453-479, January.
    2. Linda Sīle & Raf Vanderstraeten, 2019. "Measuring changes in publication patterns in a context of performance-based research funding systems: the case of educational research in the University of Gothenburg (2005–2014)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 71-91, January.
    3. Emanuel Kulczycki & Ewa A. Rozkosz, 2017. "Does an expert-based evaluation allow us to go beyond the Impact Factor? Experiences from building a ranking of national journals in Poland," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 417-442, April.
    4. Saarela, Mirka & Kärkkäinen, Tommi & Lahtonen, Tommi & Rossi, Tuomo, 2016. "Expert-based versus citation-based ranking of scholarly and scientific publication channels," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 693-718.
    5. Selcuk Besir Demir, 2018. "Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2053-2068, September.
    6. Daniella Bayle Deutz & Thea Marie Drachen & Dorte Drongstrup & Niels Opstrup & Charlotte Wien, 2021. "Quantitative quality: a study on how performance-based measures may change the publication patterns of Danish researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3303-3320, April.
    7. Emanuel Kulczycki & Raf Guns & Janne Pölönen & Tim C. E. Engels & Ewa A. Rozkosz & Alesia A. Zuccala & Kasper Bruun & Olli Eskola & Andreja Istenič Starčič & Michal Petr & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2020. "Multilingual publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A seven‐country European study," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(11), pages 1371-1385, November.
    8. Emanuel Kulczycki & Ying Huang & Alesia A. Zuccala & Tim C. E. Engels & Antonio Ferrara & Raf Guns & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Zehra Taşkın & Lin Zhang, 2022. "Uses of the Journal Impact Factor in national journal rankings in China and Europe," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(12), pages 1741-1754, December.
    9. Konstantin Fursov & Yana Roschina & Oksana Balmush, 2016. "Determinants of Research Productivity: An Individual-level Lens," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 44-56.
    10. Dzieżyc, Maciej & Kazienko, Przemysław, 2022. "Effectiveness of research grants funded by European Research Council and Polish National Science Centre," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    11. Nicky Agate & Rebecca Kennison & Stacy Konkiel & Christopher P. Long & Jason Rhody & Simone Sacchi & Penelope Weber, 2020. "The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    12. Rafols, Ismael & Stirling, Andy, 2020. "Designing indicators for opening up evaluation. Insights from research assessment," SocArXiv h2fxp, Center for Open Science.
    13. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    14. Francesco Giovanni Avallone & Alberto Quagli & Paola Ramassa, 2022. "Interdisciplinary research by accounting scholars: An exploratory study," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2022(2), pages 5-34.
    15. Yaşar Tonta & Müge Akbulut, 2020. "Does monetary support increase citation impact of scholarly papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1617-1641, November.
    16. Elea Giménez-Toledo & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Tim C. E. Engels & Peter Ingwersen & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Frederik T. Verleysen & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2016. "Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 685-699, May.
    17. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    18. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Myroslava Hladchenko, 2023. "Assessing the effects of publication requirements for professorship on research performance and publishing behaviour of Ukrainian academics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4589-4609, August.
    19. Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela Anna & Torrini, Roberto, 2017. "Gender effects in research evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 911-924.
    20. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy, 2022. "Methods to evaluate institutional responses to performance‐based research funding systems," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 615-634, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:282-298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.