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

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.

A ‘perverse incentive’ from bibliometrics: could National Research Assessment Exercises (NRAEs) restrict literature availability for nature conservation?

“…Arguments in favor are that they ensure that universities spend large amounts of public funding wisely (Oswald 2010), raise professional standards in the sector (Butler and McAllister 2009), increase research outputs such as attendance at major international conferences and publications in top journals (Butler and McAllister 2009;Box 2010;Hodder and Hodder 2010), and lead to 'financial and reputational gains' for good institutions and good researchers (Broadbent 2010, p.15). Criticisms are that NRAEs lead to an emphasis on good scores rather than good science (Butler 2007), encourage short-term research on 'hot' or 'bandwagon' topics that result in a narrowing of research diversity (Box 2010;Corsi et al 2010;Northcott and Linacre 2010), divert significant funds from supporting research directly (Hicks 2009;Broadbent 2010), change editorial policies to favor review papers, theme issues and 'hot' topics (Steele et al 2006;Falagas and Alexiou 2008), are retrospective whereas research is forward-looking (Elton 2000), discourage interdisciplinary research or the development of new disciplines (Elton 2000;Marsh et al 2012) and fail to give proper recognition to lower-ranked journals publishing clinical or applied research that influence professional practice rather than academic citations (Shewan and Coats 2006).…”

Untitled

“…For example, using data from the Web of Science, Smart (2009) concludes that research output and quality increased at New Zealand universities since the introduction of PBRF. However, Hodder and Hodder (2010) conclude that quantity increased while quality decreased.…”

The Impact of Journal Weighting Scheme Characteristics on Research Output Measurement in Economics: The New Zealand Case

“…Therefore, we have counted all non-self ISI citations to papers published over the six year period 2001-2006. 27 For information about this nation-wide research assessment scheme, see Goldfinch (2003) and Hodder and Hodder (2010).…”