4.2 Article

The heterogeneous landscape of bibliometric indicators: Evaluating models for allocating resources at Swedish universities

Journal

RESEARCH EVALUATION
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 292-305

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvv040

Keywords

research evaluation; performance indicators; university governance; bibliometrics; Sweden

Funding

  1. Svea Bredal Foundation
  2. Swedish Research Council [2013-7368]
  3. Riksbankens Jubileumsfond: The Swedish Foundation for the Social Sciences and Humanities) [SGO14-1153:1]
  4. Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences [SGO14-1153:1] Funding Source: Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of bibliometric indicators on individual and national levels has gathered considerable interest in recent years, but the application of bibliometric models for allocating resources at the institutional level has so far gathered less attention. This article studies the implementation of bibliometric measures for allocating resources at Swedish universities. Several models and indicators based on publications, citations, and research grants are identified. The design of performance-based resource allocation across major universities is then analysed using a framework from the field of evaluation studies. The practical implementation, the incentives as well as the 'ethics' of models and indicators, are scrutinized in order to provide a theoretically informed assessment of evaluation systems. It is evident that the requirements, goals, possible consequences, and the costs of evaluation are scarcely discussed before these systems are implemented. We find that allocation models are implemented in response to a general trend of assessment across all types of activities and organizations, but the actual design of evaluation systems is dependent on size, orientation, and the overall organization of the institution in question.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available