Volume 3 (2018): Edizione 4 (November 2018)

The main goal of this study is to outline and analyze the Danish adoption and translation of the Norwegian Publication Indicator.

The study takes the form of a policy analysis mainly drawing on document analysis of policy papers, previously published studies and grey literature.

The study highlights a number of crucial factors that relate both to the Danish process and to the final Danish result underscoring that the Danish BFI model is indeed a quite different system than its Norwegian counterpart. One consequence of these process- and design differences is the fact that the broader legitimacy of the Danish BFI today appears to be quite poor. Reasons for this include: unclear and shifting objectives throughout the process; limited willingness to take ownership of the model among stakeholders; lack of communication throughout the implementation process and an apparent underestimation of the challenges associated with the use of bibliometric indicators.

The conclusions of the study are based on the authors’ interpretation of a long drawn and complex process with many different stakeholders involved. The format of this article does not allow for a detailed documentation of all elements, but further details can be provided upon request.

The analysis may feed into current policy discussions on the future of the Danish BFI.

Some elements of the present analysis have previously been published in Danish outlets, but this article represents the first publication on this issue targeting a broader international audience.

This study aims to present the key systemic changes in the Polish book evaluation model to focus on the publisher list, as inspired by the Norwegian Model.

In this study we reconstruct the framework of the 2010 and 2018 models of book evaluation in Poland within the performance-based research funding system.

For almost 20 years the book evaluation system in Poland has been based on the verification of various technical criteria (e.g. length of the book). The new 2018 model is based on the principle of prestige inheritance (a book is worth as much as its publisher is) and is inspired by the publisher list used in the Norwegian Model. In this paper, we argue that this solution may be a more balanced policy instrument than the previous 2010 model in which neither the quality of the publisher nor the quality of the book played any role in the evaluation.

We work from the framework of the 2018 model of book evaluation specified in the law on higher education and science from 20 July 2018, as implementation acts are not available yet.

This study may provide a valuable point of reference on how structural reforms in the research evaluation model were implemented on a country level. The results of this study may be interesting to policy makers, stakeholders and researchers focused on science policy.

This is the very first study that presents the new framework of the Polish research evaluation model and policy instruments for scholarly book evaluation. We describe what motivated policy makers to change the book evaluation model, and what arguments were explicitly raised to argue for the new solution.

The “Norwegian model” has become widely used for assessment and resource allocation purposes. This paper investigates why this model has becomes so widespread and influential.

A theoretical background is outlined in which the reduction of “uncertainty” is highlighted as a key feature of performance measurement systems. These theories are then drawn upon when revisiting previous studies of the Norwegian model, its use, and reactions to it, in Sweden.

The empirical examples, which concern more formal use on the level of universities as well as responses from individual researchers, shows how particular parts—especially the “publication indicator”—are employed in Swedish academia. The discussion posits that the attractiveness of the Norwegian model largely can be explained by its ability to reduce complexity and uncertainty, even in fields where traditional bibliometric measurement is less applicable.

The findings presented should be regarded as examples that can be used for discussion, but one should be careful to interpret these as representative for broader sentiments and trends.

The sheer popularity of the Norwegian model, leading to its application in contexts for which it was not designed, can be seen as a major challenge for the future.

This paper offers a novel perspective on the Norwegian model by focusing on its general “appeal”, rather than on its design, use or (mis)-use.