Please wait a minute...
Journal of Data and Information Science  2018, Vol. 3 Issue (4): 3-19    DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2018-0017
Research Paper     
The Norwegian Model in Norway
Gunnar Sivertsen()
Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Oslo, Norway
Download: PDF (447 KB)      HTML  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

The “Norwegian Model” attempts to comprehensively cover all the peer-reviewed scholarly literatures in all areas of research in one single weighted indicator. Thereby, scientific production is made comparable across departments and faculties within and between research institutions, and the indicator may serve institutional evaluation and funding. This article describes the motivation for creating the model in Norway, how it was designed, organized and implemented, as well as the effects and experiences with the model. The article ends with an overview of a new type of bibliometric studies that are based on the type of comprehensive national publication data that the Norwegian Model provides.



Key wordsScientific production      Research information system      Performance-based funding      Evaluation      Bibliometrics      Indicators      Publications      Journals      Book publishing      Research institutions      Norwegian model     
Received: 05 September 2018      Published: 08 January 2019
Cite this article:

Gunnar Sivertsen. The Norwegian Model in Norway. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 3-19.

URL:

http://manu47.magtech.com.cn/Jwk3_jdis/10.2478/jdis-2018-0017     OR     http://manu47.magtech.com.cn/Jwk3_jdis/Y2018/V3/I4/3

Figure 1. Coverage of 2015 and 2016 publications (n=45,972) in the Norwegian Science Index (Cristin) by domain, total of all publication types, in Scopus and Web of Science.
Channels at
(the normal) level 1
Channels at
(the high) level 2
Articles in ISSN-titles 1 3
Articles in ISBN-titles 0.7 1
Books (ISBN-titles) 5 8
Table 1 Publication points in Norway.
Figure 2. Publications in the Norwegian Science Index (representing all public sectors of research) 2011-2017. Level 2 represents internationally leading publication channels expected to publish around 20% of the total. The green line and the axis on the right side represent the observed percentages on Level 2
Figure 3. Shares in the world’s scientific output in Web of Science 2002-2017. Source: National Science Indicators (NSI), Clarivate Analytics.
Figure 4. Age and women’s share of Norway’s researchers and their total scientific publication output in 2011. Based on data from CRISTIN, representing more than 17,000 active researchers working at 160 different research institutions in Norway.
[1]   Aagaard K., Bloch C. W., Schneider J. W., Henriksen D., Lauridsen P. S., Ryan T. K. (2014). Evaluation of the Norwegian Publication Indicator(in Danish). Oslo: Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions.
[2]   Aagaard K.(2015). How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 725-737.
[3]   Aagaard K., Bloch C. W., & Schneider J. W. (2015). Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 106-117.
[4]   Ahlgren P., Colliander C., & Persson O. (2012). Field normalized rates, field normalized journal impact and Norwegian weights for allocation of university research funds. Scientometrics, 92(3), 767-780.
[5]   Aksnes D.W., Rorstad K., Piro F., Sivertsen G. (2013). Are mobile researchers more productive and cited than non-mobile researchers? A large-scale study of Norwegian scientists. Research Evaluation, 22(4), 215-223.
[6]   Bloch C., &Schneider , J.W. (2016). Performance-based funding models and researcher behavior: An analysis of the influence of the Norwegian Publication Indicator at the individual level. Research Evaluation, 25(4), 371-382.
[7]   Chi P. (2014). Which role do non-source items play in the social sciences? A case study in political science in Germany. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1195-1213.
[8]   Chi P. (2015). Changing publication and citation patterns in political science in Germany. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1833-1848.
[9]   Díaz-Faes A. A., Bordons M., & Leeuwen T. N. (2016). Integrating metrics to measure research performance in social sciences and humanities: The case of the Spanish CSIC. Research Evaluation, 25(4), 451-460.
[10]   Engels T. C. E., Ossenblok T. L. B., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities 2000-2009. Scientometrics, 93(2), 373-390.
[11]   Giménez-Toledo E., Ma?ana-Rodríguez J., Engels T.C.E., Ingwersen P., P?l?nen J., Sivertsen G., Verleysen F.T., Zuccala A.A. (2016). Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries. Scientometrics, 107(2), 685-699.
[12]   Giménez-Toledo E., Ma?ana-Rodríguez J., Sivertsen G. (2017). Scholarly book publishing: Its information sources for evaluation in the social sciences and humanities. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 91-101.
[13]   Hammarfelt B., & de Rijcke , S. (2015). Accountability in context: Effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 63-77.
[14]   Hicks D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251-261.
[15]   Jonkers K.&Zacharewicz T. (2015). Performance based funding: A comparative assessment of their use and nature in EU Member States. Brussels: JRC Science for Policy Report.
[16]   Kulczycki E. (2017). Assessing publications through a bibliometric indicator: The case of comprehensive evaluation of scientific units in Poland. Research Evaluation, 26(1), 41-52.
[17]   Kulczycki E., Engels T.C.E., P?l?nen J., Bruun K., Duskova M., Guns R., Nowotniak R., Petr M., Sivertsen G., Starcic A.I., Zuccala A. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics, 116(1), 463-486.
[18]   Kyvik S.,&Teigen M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(1), 54-71.
[19]   Larivière V. &Costas ,R. (2016). How many is too many? On the relationship between research productivity and impact. PLoS ONE 11(9): e0162709. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162709.
[20]   Ossenblok T.L., &Engels , T.C. (2015). Edited books in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Characteristics and collaboration analysis. Scientometrics, 104(1), 219-237.
[21]   Ossenblok T. L., Guns R.,& Thelwall, M. (2015).Book editors in the social sciences and humanities:an analysis of publication and collaboration patterns of established researchers in Flanders.Learned Publishing, 28(4), 261-273.
[22]   Ossenblok T. L., Verleysen F. T., & Engels T. C. (2014). Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000-2010). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 882-897.
[23]   Ossenblok T. L.B., Engels T. C., &Sivertsen G. (2012). The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science - a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005-9). Research Evaluation, 21(4), 280-290.
[24]   Piro F. N., Aksnes D. W., & R?rstad K. (2013). A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 307-320.
[25]   Puuska H.M. (2009). Effects of scholar’s gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types. Analysis of a Finnish university. Scientometrics, 82(2), 419-437
[26]   Puuska H.-M., Guns R., P?l?nen J., Sivertsen G., Ma?ana-Rodríguez J., & Engels T.C.E. (2018). Proof of concept of a European database for social sciences and humanities publications: Description of the VIRTA-ENRESSH pilot. Helsinki: CSC & ENRESSH, .5993506.
[27]   Sandstr?m U. & van den Besselaar, P. (2016). Quantity and/or quality? The importance of publishing many papers. PLoS ONE 11(11): e0166149. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166149.
[28]   Savic M., Ivanovic M., Surla B.D. (2017). Analysis of intra-institutional research collaboration: a case of a Serbian faculty of sciences. Scientometrics, 110(1), 195-216.
[29]   Schneider J. W., Aagaard K., & Bloch C. W. (2015). What happens when national research funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? A comparison of the Australian and Norwegian publication-based funding models. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 244-256.
[30]   Sivertsen G . &Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91(2), 567-575.
[31]   Sivertsen G.& vanLeeuwen, T. (2014). Scholarly publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities and their relationship with research assessment. Science, Technology & Innovation Indicators 2014. Thematic Paper 2. Utrecht:Dialogic.
[32]   Sivertsen G. (2010). A performance indicator based on complete data for the scientific publication output at research institutions. ISSI Newsletter, 6(1), 22-28.
[33]   Sivertsen G. (2014). Scholarly publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities and their coverage in Scopus and Web of Science. In proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference 2014 Leiden (pp. 598-604). Leiden: Centre for Science and Technology Studies.
[34]   Sivertsen G. (2016a). A bibliometric indicator with a balanced representation of all fields. In proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 910-914). Valencia: Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València.
[35]   Sivertsen G. (2016b). Patterns of internationalization and criteria for research assessment in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics, 107(2), 357-368.
[36]   Sivertsen G. (2016c). Data integration in Scandinavia. Scientometrics, 106(2), 849-855.
[37]   Sivertsen G. (2017). Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective. Palgrave Communications, doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.78.
[38]   Sivertsen G. (2018). Developing Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) as data sources for studies of research. In Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
[39]   Sivertsen G., &Schneider ,J.W. (2012). Evaluering av den bibliometriske forskningsindikator. Oslo: NIFU.
[40]   Sivertsen G., Rousseau R., Zhang L. (2018). Measuring Scientific Production with Modified Fractional Counting. Journal of Informetrics (submitted).
[41]   Technopolis Group. (2013). Evaluation of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the social sciences and humanities (VABB-SHW). Technopolis Group, Executive summary. Amsterdam.
[42]   van Leeuwen T.N., van Wijk E., Wouters P.F. (2016). Bibliometric analysis of output and impact based on CRIS data: a case study on the registered output of a Dutch university. Scientometrics, 106(1), 1-16.
[43]   Verleysen F.T., &Engels ,T.C. (2014a).Internationalization of peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed book publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1431-1444.
[44]   Verleysen , F.T., &Engels ,T.C. (2014b). Barycenter representation of book publishing internationalization in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 234-240.
[1] Björn Hammarfelt. Taking Comfort in Points: The Appeal of the Norwegian Model in Sweden[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 85-95.
[2] Liam Cleere, Lai Ma. A Local Adaptation in an Output-Based Research Support Scheme (OBRSS) at University College Dublin[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 74-84.
[3] Tim C. E. Engels, Raf Guns. The Flemish Performance-based Research Funding System: A Unique Variant of the Norwegian Model[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 45-60.
[4] Janne Pölönen. Applications of, and Experiences with, the Norwegian Model in Finland[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 31-44.
[5] Kaare Aagaard. Performance-based Research Funding in Denmark: The Adoption and Translation of the Norwegian Model(1)[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 20-30.
[6] Emanuel Kulczycki, Przemysław Korytkowski. Redesigning the Model of Book Evaluation in the Polish Performance-based Research Funding System[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 61-73.
[7] Xiaoling Liu, Mihai Păunescu, Viorel Proteasa, Jinshan Wu. Minimum Representative Size in Comparing Research Performance of Universities: the Case of Medicine Faculties in Romania[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(3): 32-42.
[8] Ting Yue, Liying Yang, Per Ahlgren, Jielan Ding, Shuangqing Shi, Rainer Frietsch. A Comparison of Citation Disciplinary Structure in Science between the G7 Countries and the BRICS Countries[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(3): 14-31.
[9] Haiyun Xu, Chao Wang, Kun Dong, Rui Luo, Zenghui Yue, Hongshen Pang . A Study of Methods to Identify Industry-University-Research Institution Cooperation Partners based on Innovation Chain Theory[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(2): 38-61.
[10] Jose A. Moral-Munoz, Manuel Arroyo-Morales, Barbara F. Piper, Antonio I. Cuesta-Vargas, Lourdes Díaz-Rodríguez, William C.S. Cho, Enrique Herrera-Viedma, Manuel J. Cobo . Thematic Trends in Complementary and Alternative Medicine Applied in Cancer-Related Symptoms[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(2): 1-19.
[11] Garner Jon,L. Porter Alan,Leidolf Andreas,Baker Michelle. Measuring and Visualizing Research Collaboration and Productivity[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(1): 54-81.
[12] Cinzia Daraio. A Framework for the Assessment of Research and Its Impacts[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2017, 2(4): 7-42.
[13] Stephen Carley, Alan L. Porter, Ismael Rafols, Loet Leydesdorff. Visualization of Disciplinary Profiles: Enhanced Science Overlay Maps[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2017, 2(3): 68-111.
[14] Zhao Dangzhi, Cappello Alicia, Johnston Lucinda. Functions of Uni- and Multi-citations: Implications for Weighted Citation Analysis[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2017, 2(1): 51-69.
[15] van Raan Anthony F.J.. Patent Citations Analysis and Its Value in Research Evaluation: A Review and a New Approach to Map Technology-relevant Research[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2017, 2(1): 13-50.