In this paper, the impact of the Bologna reform is analyzed based on differences in scientific publication performance among the Ph.D. graduates that enrolled into doctoral study programs before the implementation of the Bologna reform in Slovenia (the pre-Bologna Ph.D. graduates) and those that enrolled after (the post-Bologna Ph.D. graduates). The transition between programs was not immediate; in Slovenia, the first Ph.D. students of the Bologna doctoral study programs were enrolled in the 2005/06 academic year, while the last academic year in which it was still possible to enroll into the pre-Bologna program was 2009/10. For Slovenian Ph.D. graduates from the 2007–2016 period, their publication records from 2 years prior to their Ph.D. theses defense to 2 years after are used for the analysis. Four indicators of their scientific publication performance are analyzed and compared: productivity, collaboration, internationality, and independence—each of them capturing a different aspect of the graduates’ research activities. The results show that there is no significant difference in the average productivity and collaboration between the post-Bologna Ph.D. graduates and the pre-Bologna Ph.D. graduates, while the values for both groups in both indicators are unexpectedly notably decreasing over the years. In contrast, internationality and independence are more constant, in general, whereas the differences between the two researched groups of Ph.D. graduates are more visible. Therefore, we conclude that the Bologna reform has a significant impact on the scientific publication performance of Ph.D. graduates, as there are notable differences in the pre-Bologna and the post-Bologna Ph.D. graduates’ performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development currently has 36-member countries, from North and South America to Europe and Asia–Pacific, including 27 from the Europe (https://www.oecd.org/about/members-and-partners/) which are also among European Higher Education Area (EHEA) countries. EHEA/BFUG (Bologna Follow-up Group) members are 48 countries and the European Commission (http://ehea.info/page-full_members).
Those Ph.D. students performed their research within companies, but were fully financed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport.
The Agency finances their salaries, social contributions, as well as material and non-material costs. Funds for the training of AYRs are allocated for a fixed-term, up to a maximum of 4 years (duration of Ph.D. studies—3 years plus 1 additional year).
Abbasi, A., Chung, K., & Hossain, L. (2012). Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance. Information Processing and Management,48, 671–679.
ARRS. (2017). Letno poročilo 2017. Retrieved September 17, 2019, from https://www.arrs.si/sl/finan/letpor/17/inc/Letno-porocilo-ARRS-2017.pdf.
ARRS. (2018). Letno poročilo 2018. Retrieved September 17, 2019, from http://www.arrs.si/sl/finan/letpor/18/inc/Letno-porocilo-ARRS-2018.pdf.
Crosier, D., & Parveva, T. (2013). The Bologna process: Its impact on higher education development in Europe and beyond. Fundamentals of educational planning. Unesco: International Institute for Education Planning.
Deardorff, D. K., de Wit, H., & Heyl, J. D. (2012). Bridges to the future. The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 457–487). Beverly Hills: SAGE.
European University Association. (2007). Doctoral programmes in Europe’s universities: achievements and challenges. Report prepared for european universities and Ministers of Higher education. European University Association.
Eurydice. (2018). The European higher education area in 2018: Bologna process implementation report. Publications Office of the European Union.
Ferligoj, A., Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Shijders, T. A., & Doreian, P. (2015). Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system. Scientometrics,104(3), 985–1012.
Gevers, M. (2014). Scientific performance indicators: A critical appraisal and a country-by-country analysis. In W. Blockmans, D. Weaire, & L. Engwall (Eds.), Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance (pp. 43–53). London: Portland Press.
Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics,51(1), 69–115.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Domesticity and internationality in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics,65(3), 323–342.
Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisers: Relationships with doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel Psychology,48(3), 537–562.
Grover, V. (2007). Successfully navigating the stages of doctoral study. International Journal of Doctoral Studies,2(1), 9–21.
Jasenek, J., & Červeňová, J. (2008). A view on the PhD studies in Bologna process. In 19th EAEEIE annual conference (pp. 143–148).
Karlovčec, M., Lužar, B., & Mladenić, D. (2016). Core-periphery dynamics in collaboration networks: The case study of Slovenia. Scientometrics,109(3), 1561–1578.
Karlovčec, M., & Mladenić, D. (2015). Interdisciplinarity of scientific fields and its evolution based on graph of project collaboration and co-authoring. Scientometrics,102(1), 433–454.
Kastrin, A., Klisara, J., Lužar, B., & Povh, J. (2017). Analysis of Slovenian research community through bibliographic networks. Scientometrics,110(2), 791–813.
Kastrin, A., Klisara, J., Lužar, B., & Povh, J. (2018). Is science driven by principal investigators? Scientometrics,117(2), 1157–1182.
Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: The European Commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education,41(2), 203–223.
Kehm, B. M. (2010). Quality in European higher education: The influence of the Bologna Process. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,42(3), 40–46.
King, D. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature,430, 311–316.
Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2012). Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities. Scientometrics,90(2), 631–647.
Kurelic, Z., & Rodin, S. (2012). Failure of the Croatian higher education reform. CEPS Journal,2(4), 29–52.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science,35, 673–702.
Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy of Science,16, 181–218.
Lužar, B., Levnajić, Z., Povh, J., & Perc, M. (2014). Community structure and the evolution of interdisciplinarity in Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94429.
Marhl, M., & Pausits, A. (2011). Third mission indicators for new ranking methodologies. Evaluation in Higher Education,5(1), 43–64.
Melin, G., & Janson, K. (2006). What skills and knowledge should a PhD have? Changing preconditions for PhD education and post doc work. Wenner Gren International Series,83, 105–118.
Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics,21, 313–323.
Ndanguza, D., & Mutarutinya, V. (2017). A model perception on the independence of PhD students in promoting the research capability at University of Rwanda. Rwandan Journal of Education,4, 4–12.
Neave, G., & Maassen, P. (2007). The Bologna process: An intergovernmental policy perspective. Berlin: Springer.
Newman, M. (2004). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. In E. Ben-Naim, H. Frauenfelder, & Z. Toroczkai (Eds.), Complex networks (pp. 337–370). Berlin: Springer.
OECD. (2017). Education at a glance 2017: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2017_eag-2017-en.
OECD. (2018). Education at a glance 2018: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2018_eag-2018-en.
Orellana, M. L., Darder, A., Pérez, A., & Salinas, J. (2016). Improving doctoral success by matching PhD students with supervisors. Informing Science Institute,11, 87–103.
Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education,47(4), 451–476.
Perc, M. (2010a). Growth and structure of Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. Journal of Informetrics,4(4), 475–482.
Perc, M. (2010b). Zipf’s law and log-normal distributions in measures of scientific output across fields and institutions: 40 years of Slovenia’s research as an example. Journal of Informetrics,4(3), 358–364.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy,42(2), 423–442.
Pravdić, N., & Oluić-Vuković, V. (1986). Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaboration/scientific output relationship. Scientometrics,10, 259–280.
Reichert, S. (2010). The intended and unintended effects of the Bologna reforms. Higher Education Management and Policy,22(1), 1–20.
Rybnicek, R., & Königsgruber, R. (2019). What makes industry–university collaboration succeed? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics,89(2), 221–250.
Schmoch, U., Schubert, T., Jansen, D., Heidler, R., & von Gőrtz, R. (2010). How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: A balanced approach. Research Evaluation,19, 2–18.
van den Besselaar, P., & Sandström, U. (2019). Measuring researcher independence using bibliometric data: A proposal for a new performance indicator. PLoS ONE,14, e0202712.
Van der Wende, M. C. (2000). The Bologna Declaration: Enhancing the transparency and competitiveness of European higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education,4(2), 3–10.
Wildgaard, L., Schneider, J., & Larsen, B. (2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics,101, 1–158.
Yoshikane, F., & Kageura, K. (2004). Comparative analysis of coauthorship networks of different domains. Scientometrics,60, 435–446.
Zgaga, P. (2004). Bolonjski proces: oblikovanje skupnega evropskega visokošolskega prostora. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta, Center za študij edukacijskih strategij.
The second and the third author acknowledge partial support from the bilateral project BI-RS/18-19-052 between Serbia and Slovenia. The second author would also like to thank the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development for support through Project No. 451-03-68/2020-14/200125. The third author acknowledges partial support from the Slovenian Research Agency Program P1–0383.
About this article
Cite this article
Rojko, K., Bratić, B. & Lužar, B. The Bologna reform’s impacts on the scientific publication performance of Ph.D. graduates—the case of Slovenia. Scientometrics 124, 329–356 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03482-w
- Bologna reform
- Higher education
- Ph.D. studies
- Scientific performance
- Research assessment