The Norwegian Model in Norway

doi:10.2478/jdis-2018-0017

Abstract

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 words: Scientific production, Research information system, Performance-based funding, Evaluation, Bibliometrics, Indicators, Publications, Journals, Book publishing, Research institutions, Norwegian model

Gunnar, Sivertsen. "The Norwegian Model in Norway." Journal of Data and Information Science, vol.3, no.4, 2018, pp.3-19. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2018-0017

References

[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.
[45]	Zhang L. &Sivertsen, G. (2017). Productivity versus citation impact: A study of persons, not just authors. In proceedings of 16th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics (pp. 970-975). Wuhan: www.issi2017.org.