Scientometrics

, Volume 95, Issue 1, pp 243–255 | Cite as

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

  • Michael C. Calver
  • Maggie Lilith
  • Christopher R. Dickman
Article

Abstract

National Research Assessment Exercises (NRAEs) aim to improve returns from public funding of research. Critics argue that they undervalue publications influencing practice, not citations, implying that journals valued least by NRAEs are disproportionately useful to practitioners. Conservation biology can evaluate this criticism because it uses species recovery plans, which are practitioner-authored blueprints for recovering threatened species. The literature cited in them indicates what is important to practitioners’ work. We profiled journals cited in 50 randomly selected recovery plans from each of the USA, Australia and New Zealand, using ranking criteria from the Australian Research Council and the SCImago Institute. Citations showed no consistent pattern. Sometimes higher ranked publications were represented more frequently, sometimes lower ranked publications. Recovery plans in all countries also contained 37 % or more citations to ‘grey literature’, discounted in NRAEs. If NRAEs discourage peer-reviewed publication at any level they could exacerbate the trend not to publish information useful for applied conservation, possibly harming conservation efforts. While indicating the potential for an impact does not establish that it occurs, it does suggest preventive steps. NRAEs considering the proportion of papers in top journals may discourage publication in lower-ranked journals, because one way to increase the proportion of outputs in top journals is by not publishing in lower ones. Instead, perhaps only a user-nominated subset of publications could be evaluated, a department’s or an individual’s share of the top publications in a field could be noted, or innovative new multivariate assessments of research productivity applied, including social impact.

Keywords

Australia New Zealand USA UK Nature conservation Threatening process ERA PBRF VTR REF NRAE RAE 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank, without implication, H. Recher, B. Dell, D. Saunders and an anonymous reviewer for detailed and constructive feedback on earlier versions.

References

  1. Adler, R., Ewing, J. & Taylor, P. (2008). Citation statistics. A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Instititute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS). http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf. Accessed 28 August 2012.
  2. Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). When knowledge wins: transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ARC (2012). ERA 2012 frequently asked questions. Available from http://www.arc.gov.au/era/faq.htm. Accessed 12 August 2011.
  4. Bollen, J., van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE, 4(6), e6022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Box, S. (2010). Performance-based funding for public research in tertiary education institutions: Country experiences. In OECD Performance-based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions: Workshop Proceedings. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264094611-en.
  6. Broadbent, J. (2010). The UK research assessment exercise: Performance measurement and resource allocation. Australian Accounting Review, 20, 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant, K. & Calver, M. (2012). Adaptive radiation in Australian journals in the Arbustocene ERA: an empty niche for JANCO? In P.B.Banks, D. Lunney & C.R. Dickman (Eds.), Science under siege (in press). Sydney: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, L. (2007). Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy, 34, 565–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler, L. (2010). Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: a review of the concerns and the evidence. In OECD Performance-based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions: Workshop Proceedings. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264094611-en.
  10. Butler, L., & McAllister, I. (2009). Authors’ response to reviews. Political Studies Review, 7, 84–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calver, M. C., & King, D. R. (2000). Why publication matters in conservation biology. Pacific Conservation Biology, 6, 2–8.Google Scholar
  12. Calver, M. C., Grayson, J., Lilith, M., & Dickman, C. R. (2011). Applying the precautionary principle to the issue of impacts by pet cats on urban wildlife. Biological Conservation, 144, 1895–1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calver, M., Wardell-Johnson, G., Bradley, S., & Taplin, R. (2010). What makes a journal international? A case study using conservation biology journals. Scientometrics, 85, 387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carr, K. (2011). Improvements to Excellence in Research for Australia. Canberra: Australian Government. Available from http://archive.innovation.gov.au/ministersarchive2011/carr/MediaReleases/Pages/IMPROVEMENTSTOEXCELLENCEINRESEARCHFORAUSTRALIA.html. Accessed 9 April 2011.
  15. Clark, J. A., Hoekstra, J. M., Boersma, P. D., & Kareiva, P. (2002). Improving US Endangered Species Act recovery plans: key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project. Conservation Biology, 16, 1510–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colledge, L., De Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., López-Illescas, C., El Aisati, M., & Moed, H. F. (2010). SJR and SNIP: Two new journal metrics in Elsevier’s Scopus. Serials, 23, 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper, S., & Poletti, A. (2011). The new ERA of journal ranking: the consequences of Australia’s fraught encounter with ‘quality’. Australian Universities’ Review, 53, 57–65.Google Scholar
  18. Corsi, M., D’Ippoliti, C., & Lucidi, F. (2010). Pluralism at risk? Heterodox economic approaches and the evaluation of economic research in Italy. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 69, 1495–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Debachere, M.-C. (1995). Problems in obtaining grey literature. IFLA Journal, 21, 94–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deville, A., & Harding, R. (1997). Applying the precautionary principle. Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
  21. Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2010). Characteristics of high- and low-performing university departments as assessed by the New Zealand performance based research funding (PBRF) exercise. Australian Accounting Review, 20, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elton, L. (2000). The UK research assessment exercise: unintended consequences. Higher Education Quarterly, 54, 274–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fairfull, S. J., & Williams, R. J. (2003). Community involvement in natural resource management: Lessons for future water management in catchments of New South Wales. In P. Hutchings & D. Lunney (Eds.), Conserving marine environments: Out of sight, out of mind (pp. 55–61). Sydney: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.Google Scholar
  24. Falagas, M. E., & Alexiou, V. G. (2008). The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Archivum Immunologiae Et Therapiae Experimentalis, 56, 223–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gihus, N. E., & Sivertsen, G. (2009). Publishing affects funding in neurology. European Journal of Neurology, 17, 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gowrishankar, J., & Divakar, P. (1999). Sprucing up one’s impact factor (multiple letters). Nature, 401(6751), 321–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hicks, D. (2009). Evolving regimes of multi-university research evaluation. Higher Education, 57, 541–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hicks, D. (2010). Overviews of performance-based research funding systems. In OECD Performance-based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions: Workshop Proceedings. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264094611-en.
  29. Hodder, A. P. W., & Hodder, C. (2010). Research culture and New Zealand’s performance-based research fund: Some insights from bibliographic compilations of research outputs. Scientometrics, 84, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horwitz, P. & Wardell-Johnson, G. (2009). Cultural conservation biology. In M. Calver, A. Lymbery, J. McComb & M. Bamford, M. (Eds.) Environmental biology (pp. 559–578). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jacsó, P. (2010). Comparison of journal impact rankings in the SCImago journal and country rank and the journal citation reports databases. Online Information Review, 34, 642–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lane, J. (2010). Let’s make science metrics more scientific. Nature, 464, 488–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lane, J., & Bertuzzi, S. (2011). Measuring the results of science investments. Science, 331, 678–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawrence, P. A. (2007). The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology, 17, R583–R585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luwel, M. (2010). Highlights and reflections: rapporteur’s report. In OECD Performance-based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions: Workshop Proceedings. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264094611-en.
  36. Marsh, H., Smith, B., King, M., & Evans, T. (2012). A new era for research education in Australia? Australian Universities’ Review, 54, 83–93.Google Scholar
  37. Martin, B. R. (2011). The research excellence framework and the ‘impact agenda’. Are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, 20, 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McNay, I. (1998). The research assessment exercise (RAE) and after: ‘you never know how it will turn out’. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 2, 19–22.Google Scholar
  39. Meffe, G. (2006). The success—and challenges—of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 20, 931–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Molas-Gallart, J., & Tang, P. (2011). Tracing ‘productive interactions’ to identify social impacts: an example from the social sciences. Research Evaluation, 20, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Northcott, D., & Linacre, S. (2010). Producing spaces for academic discourse: The impact of research assessment exercises and journal quality rankings. Australian Accounting Review, 52, 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. OECD (2010). Performance-based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions: Workshop Proceedings. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264094611-en.
  43. Oppenheim, C. (2008). Out with the old and in with the new: the RAE, bibliometrics and the new REF. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 40, 147–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ortega-Argueta, A., Baxter, G., & Hockings, M. (2011). Compliance of Australian threatened species recovery plans with legislative requirements. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 2054–2060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oswald, A. J. (2010). A suggested method for the measurement of world-leading research (illustrated with data on economics). Scientometrics, 84, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Primack, R. (2009). Why did we reject your paper? Biological Conservation, 142, 1559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business and management. Research Policy, 41, 1262–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roa, T., Beggs, J. R., Williams, J., & Mohler, H. (2009). New Zealand’s performance based research funding (PBRF) model undermines Maori research. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39, 233–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sampson, K. A., & Comer, K. (2010). When the governmental tail wags the disciplinary dog: some consequences of national funding policy on doctoral research in New Zealand. Higher Education Research and Development., 29, 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schuch, S., Bock, J., Leuschner, C., Schaefer, M., & Wesche, K. (2011). Minor changes in orthopteran assemblages of Central European protected dry grasslands during the last 40 years. Journal of Insect Conservation, 15, 811–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schuch, S., Bock, J., Krause, B., Wesche, K., & Schaefer, M. (2012a). Long-term population trends in three grassland insect groups: A comparative analysis of 1951 and 2009. Journal of Applied Entomology, 136, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schuch, S., Wesche, K., & Schaefer, M. (2012b). Long-term decline in the abundance of leafhoppers and planthoppers (Auchenorrhyncha) in Central European protected dry grasslands. Biological Conservation, 149, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. SCImago (2007). SJR—SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), University of Granada, Extremadura, Carlos III (Madrid) & Alcalá de Henares, Spain. Available from http://www.scimagojr.com. Accessed July–August 2010.
  54. SCImago (2012). SCImago institutions rankings. SIR World Rankings 2011: Global ranking. Available from http://www.scimagoir.com/ Accessed 9 April 2012.
  55. Shewan, L. G., & Coats, A. J. S. (2006). The research quality framework and its implications for health and medical research: time to take stock? Medical Journal of Australia, 184, 463–466.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, S., Ward, V., & House, A. (2011). ‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework: shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy. Research Policy, 40, 1369–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spaapen, J., & van Drooge, L. (2011). Productive interactions as a tool for social impact assessment of research. Research Evaluation, 20, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Steele, C., Butler, L., & Kingsley, D. (2006). The publishing imperative: the pervasive influence of publication metrics. Learned Publishing, 19, 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stergiou, K. I. S., & Tsikliras, A. C. (2006). Underrepresentation of regional ecological research output by bibliometric indices. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 6, 15–17.Google Scholar
  60. Stinchcombe, J., & Moyle, L.C. (2002). The influence of the academic conservation biology literature on endangered species recovery planning. Conservation Ecology 6(2), 15. http://www.consecol.org/vol16/iss12/art15/.
  61. UNESCO (2005). The precautionary principle. World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris.Google Scholar
  62. Visser, G. (2009). Tourism geographies and the South African National Research Foundation’s Researcher Rating System: international connections and local disjunctures. Tourism Geographies, 11, 43–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Witten, K., & Hammond, K. (2010). What becomes of social science knowledge: New Zealand researchers’ experiences of knowledge transfer modes and audiences. Kotuitui, 5, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael C. Calver
    • 1
  • Maggie Lilith
    • 1
  • Christopher R. Dickman
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Biological Sciences and BiotechnologyMurdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia
  2. 2.Institute of Wildlife Research, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations