IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/9yq38.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentivising, excluding, and enduring: The policy dynamics of quantitative research assessment in Lithuania

Author

Listed:
  • Dagiene, Eleonora

    (Mykolas Romeris University)

  • Larivière, Vincent
  • Dix, Guus
  • Waltman, Ludo

Abstract

Performance-based funding systems have significantly impacted the research systems in many countries. This study examines the evolution of the performance-based funding system in Lithuania. Using a multi-level, multi-actor, and multi-issue approach, we investigate how various actors influenced policy choices and outcomes. Through a combination of policy analysis, interviews, and bibliometric analysis, we explore tensions between international aspirations and domestic realities, the interplay between national policies and publishing behaviour, and challenges of metrics-based research assessment. Our findings reveal how the dominant role of scientific elites at all levels of governance had both intended outcomes (increase in publications in general and international publications in particular) and unintended consequences (proliferation of institutional journals and strategic publishing practices). Our study provides insights for policymakers and stakeholders seeking to develop effective and sustainable policies amidst calls for research assessment reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Dagiene, Eleonora & Larivière, Vincent & Dix, Guus & Waltman, Ludo, 2024. "Incentivising, excluding, and enduring: The policy dynamics of quantitative research assessment in Lithuania," SocArXiv 9yq38, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:9yq38
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/9yq38
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/66d3727c037f20be88df7291/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/9yq38?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whitley, Richard, 2016. "Varieties of scientific knowledge and their contributions to dealing with policy problems: A response to Richard Nelson’s “The sciences are different and the differences matter”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1702-1707.
    2. 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.
    3. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    4. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    7. 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.
    8. Bagues, Manuel & Sylos-Labini, Mauro & Zinovyeva, Natalia, 2019. "A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 462-477.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. John Rigby & Barbara Jones, 2020. "Bringing the doctoral thesis by published papers to the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A quantitative easing? A small study of doctoral thesis submission rules and practice in two disciplines in ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1387-1409, August.
    12. Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2015. "Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 451-466.
    13. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    14. Stefano Bianchini & Francesco Lissoni & Michele Pezzoni & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2016. "The economics of research, consulting, and teaching quality: theory and evidence from a technical university," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(7), pages 668-691, October.
    15. 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).
    16. Peter Scott, 2011. "The University as a Global Institution," Chapters, in: Roger King & Simon Marginson & Rajani Naidoo (ed.), Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. John Mingers & Jesse R. O’Hanley & Musbaudeen Okunola, 2017. "Using Google Scholar institutional level data to evaluate the quality of university research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1627-1643, December.
    18. Demetrescu, Camil & Lupia, Francesco & Mendicelli, Angelo & Ribichini, Andrea & Scarcello, Francesco & Schaerf, Marco, 2019. "On the Shapley value and its application to the Italian VQR research assessment exercise," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 87-104.
    19. Aleksander Galas & Aleksandra Pilat & Matilde Leonardi & Beata Tobiasz-Adamczyk, 2018. "Research Project Evaluation—Learnings from the PATHWAYS Project Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, May.
    20. Rowlinson, Michael & Harvey, Charles & Kelly, Aidan & Morris, Huw & Todeva, Emanuela, 2015. "Accounting for research quality: Research audits and the journal rankings debate," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 2-22.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:socarx:9yq38. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.