IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v84y2010i3d10.1007_s11192-010-0201-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research culture and New Zealand’s performance-based research fund: some insights from bibliographic compilations of research outputs

Author

Listed:
  • A. Peter W. Hodder

    (Victoria University of Wellington
    HodderBalog—Writing Editing Publishing)

  • Catherine Hodder

    (HodderBalog—Writing Editing Publishing)

Abstract

Year-on-year trends in research outputs show increases in research activity as the date of the research assessment exercise—in New Zealand the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF)—looms. Moreover, changes with time in the number and types of conference presentation indicate that the vehicle of publication is also being influenced by the PBRF. Within New Zealand business schools, relating the published journal articles to the Australian Business Deans Council rankings list shows a trend towards more publications of lower rank, raising doubts about whether the rhetoric about the PBRF raising the quality of research is really justified. This ‘drive’ towards increasing numbers of research outputs is also fostered by an increasing trend towards co-authorship in publishing across all disciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Peter W. Hodder & Catherine Hodder, 2010. "Research culture and New Zealand’s performance-based research fund: some insights from bibliographic compilations of research outputs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 887-901, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:84:y:2010:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0201-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0201-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-010-0201-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-010-0201-0?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. David Anderson & John Tressler, 2008. "Research output in New Zealand economics departments 2000-2006: A stock approach," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 155-189.
    2. Alastair G. Smith, 2008. "Benchmarking Google Scholar with the New Zealand PBRF research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 309-316, February.
    3. Katharine Barker, 2007. "The UK Research Assessment Exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 3-12, March.
    4. Henk F. Moed, 2008. "UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(1), pages 153-161, 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. Dixon, Keith, 2013. "Growth and dispersion of accounting research about New Zealand before and during a National Research Assessment Exercise: Five decades of academic journals bibliometrics," MPRA Paper 51100, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2017. "Researcher rank stability across alternative output measurement schemes in the context of a time limited research evaluation: the New Zealand case," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(45), pages 4542-4553, September.
    3. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2013. "The New Zealand performance-based research fund and its impact on publication activity in economics," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 1-11, September.
    4. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy, 2019. "The evolution of research quality in New Zealand universities as measured by the performance-based research fund process," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(2), pages 144-165, May.
    5. John Hudson, 2016. "An analysis of the titles of papers submitted to the UK REF in 2014: authors, disciplines, and stylistic details," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 871-889, November.
    6. Richard S. J. Tol, 2012. "Shapley values for assessing research production and impact of schools and scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 763-780, March.
    7. Okon E. Ani & Patrick Ngulube & Bosire Onyancha, 2015. "Perceived Effect of Accessibility and Utilization of Electronic Resources on Productivity of Academic Staff in Selected Nigerian Universities," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(4), pages 21582440156, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Robert A. Buckle and John Creedy, 2018. "The Impact on Research Quality of Performance-Based Funding: The Case of New Zealand’s PBRF Scheme," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 25-48.
    10. John Tressler & David L. Anderson, 2012. "Citations as a Measure of the Research Outputs of New Zealand's Economics Departments: The Problem of 'Long and Variable Lags'," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 19(1), pages 17-40.
    11. Robert A. Buckle and John Creedy, 2018. "The Impact on Research Quality of Performance-Based Funding: The Case of New Zealand’s PBRF Scheme," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 25-48.
    12. Michael C. Calver & Maggie Lilith & Christopher R. Dickman, 2013. "A ‘perverse incentive’ from bibliometrics: could National Research Assessment Exercises (NRAEs) restrict literature availability for nature conservation?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 243-255, April.
    13. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2011. "The Merits of Using Citations to Measure Research Output in Economics Departments: The New Zealand Case," Working Papers in Economics 11/11, University of Waikato.
    14. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    15. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2015. "Are Researcher Rankings Stable Across Alternative Output Measurement Schemes in the Context of a Time Limited Research Evaluation? The New Zealand Case," Working Papers in Economics 15/10, University of Waikato.
    16. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy, 2019. "The evolution of research quality in New Zealand universities as measured by the performance-based research fund process," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(2), pages 144-165, May.

    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. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    2. Lawson, Cornelia & Geuna, Aldo & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Toselli, Manuel & Kataishi, Rodrigo, 2015. "International Careers of Researchers in Biomedical Sciences: A Comparison of the US and the UK," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201514, University of Turin.
    3. Feng Li & Yong Yi & Xiaolong Guo & Wei Qi, 2012. "Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: based on a two-dimensional approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 531-542, February.
    4. Alberto Anfossi & Alberto Ciolfi & Filippo Costa & Giorgio Parisi & Sergio Benedetto, 2016. "Large-scale assessment of research outputs through a weighted combination of bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 671-683, May.
    5. David L. Anderson & John Tresler, 2008. "An Analysis of New Zealand Economists' Research Output 2000-2006," Working Papers in Economics 08/20, University of Waikato, revised 31 Dec 2008.
    6. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2009. "The Excellence in Research for Australia Scheme: An Evaluation of the Draft Journal Weights for Economics," Working Papers in Economics 09/07, University of Waikato.
    7. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 9447, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    8. John Tressler & David L. Anderson, 2012. "Citations as a Measure of the Research Outputs of New Zealand's Economics Departments: The Problem of 'Long and Variable Lags'," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 19(1), pages 17-40.
    9. Fabian Scheidegger & Andre Briviba & Bruno S. Frey, 2023. "Behind the curtains of academic publishing: strategic responses of economists and business scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4765-4790, August.
    10. Giliberto Capano & Benedetto Lepori, 2024. "Designing policies that could work: understanding the interaction between policy design spaces and organizational responses in public sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 53-82, March.
    11. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2011. "Ranking Economics Departments In Terms Of Residual Productivity: New Zealand Economics Departments, 2000–2006," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(4), pages 157-168, December.
    12. Degl’Innocenti, Marta & Matousek, Roman & Tzeremes, Nickolaos G., 2019. "The interconnections of academic research and universities’ “third mission”: Evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    13. Carmen Osuna & Laura Cruz Castro & Luis Sanz Menéndez, 2010. "Knocking down some Assumptions about the Effects of Evaluation Systems on Publications," Working Papers 1010, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    14. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia & Nicolas Robinson-García & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2013. "Benchmarking research performance at the university level with information theoretic measures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 435-452, April.
    15. Wang, Derek D., 2019. "Performance-based resource allocation for higher education institutions in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 66-75.
    16. Elizabeth Troncoso & Daniel A. López & René Ruby-Figueroa & Dieter Koch & Ricardo Reich, 2024. "Does Quality Matter? Quality Assurance in Research for the Chilean Higher Education System," Publications, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2011. "A national-scale cross-time analysis of university research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 399-413, May.
    18. Lorna Wildgaard & Jesper W. Schneider & Birger Larsen, 2014. "A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 125-158, October.
    19. Civera, Alice & Lehmann, Erik E. & Paleari, Stefano & Stockinger, Sarah A.E., 2020. "Higher education policy: Why hope for quality when rewarding quantity?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    20. Monacciani, Fabiana, 2010. "University departments evaluation: a multivariate approach," MPRA Paper 24224, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:spr:scient:v:84:y:2010:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0201-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.