Scientometrics

, Volume 109, Issue 2, pp 1299–1306 | Cite as

The new Norwegian incentive system for publication: from bad to worse

Article
First Online:
Received:

Abstract

The new Norwegian system for calculation of publication credits is examined. The new system was launched due to criticism for penalizing collaborative research. It turns out that adverse incentive problems emerge as a result of this system change. We show by a simple case, that institutions will benefit (credit-wise) by adding more authors to a scientific publication. Even worse, the beneficial effect increases the more authors the paper has initially. Alternative cases indicate even stronger incentives for co-author maximization.

Keywords

Research Reward system Adverse incentive effects Norway 

JEL Classification

I21 I28 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allan, B. M., & Fryer, R. G., Jr. (2011). The power and pitfalls of education incentives. Technical report discussion paper 2011-07. Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project.Google Scholar
  2. ATLAS and CMS Collaborations (5154 authors). (2015). Combined measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in \(pp\) Collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=7\) and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments. Physical Review Letters, 114, 1–47.Google Scholar
  3. ATLAS Collaboration (2883 authors). (2012). Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Physics Letters B, 716(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boletsis, C. (2016). Level 1 & level 2 publications—Norwegian scientific index. http://blog.boletsis.net/level-1-level-2-publications-norwegian-scientific-index/. Accessed 2016-04-13.
  6. Boulton, G. (2011). University rankings: Diversity, excellence and the European initiative. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 13, 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. International Commitee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2016). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Accessed 2016-03-14.
  8. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. (2933 authors) (2001). Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409, 860–921.Google Scholar
  9. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enserink, M. (2016). Swedish academy seeks to stem ‘crisis of confidence’ in wake of Macchiarini scandal. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/swedish-academy-seeks-stem-crisis-confidence-wake-macchiarini-scandal. Accessed 2016-04-15.
  11. Fernandez, R. (2016). Why incentives don’t work in education—Or the business world. https://www.flickr.com/photos/opensourceway/4862920379. Accessed: 2016-04-15.
  13. Goldstein, A. (2016). Too many authors. http://berkeleysciencereview.com/too-many-authors/. Accessed 2016-03-14.
  14. Haugen, K. l. K. (2016). Could demanding a presentation of the paper be the solution?. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298342919_Could_demanding_a_presentation_of_the_paper_be_the_solution. Accessed 2016-03-14.
  15. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, T., Huggett, S., & Kamalski, J. (2011). Finding a way through the scientific literature: Indexes and measures. World Neurosurgery, 76(1), 36–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kohn, A. (1993). Alfie Kohn responds. Harvard Business Review, 71(6), 48–49.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Kohn, A. (1993). Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 54–60.Google Scholar
  19. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43, 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mas-Colell, A. (2003). The European space of higher education: Incentive and governance issues. Rivista Di Politica Economica, 93(11/12), 9–28.Google Scholar
  21. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neal, D. (2009). Designing incentive systems for schools. In M. G. Springer (Ed.), Performance Incentives. Their Growing Impact on American K-12 Education (pp. 149–170). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  23. NSD Norwegian Centre for Research Data. (2016). Publication channels. https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/Forside?request_locale=en. Accessed 2016-04-13.
  24. Sandnes, F. E. (2016). Hvordan melke tellekanter i 2016. Oslo: Khrono Student paper at Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences. http://khrono.no/debatt/hvordan-melke-tellekanter-i-2016. Accessed 2016-03-14 (in Norwegian).
  25. Torra, V., & Narukawa, Y. (2008). The \(h\)-index and the number of citations: Two fuzzy integrals. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 16(3), 759–797.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LogisticsMolde University College, Specialized University in LogisticsMoldeNorway
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Technology, Art and DesignOslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations