<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><sec id="j_jdis-2018-0018_s_007_w2aab3b7b3b1b6b1aab1c18b1Aa"><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The main goal of this study is to outline and analyze the Danish adoption and translation of the Norwegian Publication Indicator.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis-2018-0018_s_008_w2aab3b7b3b1b6b1aab1c18b2Aa"><h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3><p>The study takes the form of a policy analysis mainly drawing on document analysis of policy papers, previously published studies and grey literature.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis-2018-0018_s_009_w2aab3b7b3b1b6b1aab1c18b3Aa"><h3>Findings</h3><p>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.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis-2018-0018_s_010_w2aab3b7b3b1b6b1aab1c18b4Aa"><h3>Research limitation</h3><p>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.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis-2018-0018_s_011_w2aab3b7b3b1b6b1aab1c18b5Aa"><h3>Practical implications</h3><p>The analysis may feed into current policy discussions on the future of the Danish BFI.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis-2018-0018_s_012_w2aab3b7b3b1b6b1aab1c18b6Aa"><h3>Originality/value</h3><p>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.</p></sec></abstract>

PurposeThe main goal of this study is to outline and analyze the Danish adoption and translation of the Norwegian Publication Indicator.Design/methodology/approachThe study takes the form of a policy analysis mainly drawing on document analysis of policy papers, previously published studies and grey literature.FindingsThe 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.Research limitationThe 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.Practical implicationsThe analysis may feed into current policy discussions on the future of the Danish BFI.Originality/valueSome 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.

Performance-based Research Funding in Denmark: The Adoption and Translation of the Norwegian Model

Department of Political Science & Government

Journal of Data and Information Science

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

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

	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Core funding (mio.DKK)	7,905	8,443	8,504	8,592	8,589	8,593	8,526	8,527	8,527
Performance-based share	320	594	680	1,045	1,182	1,326	1,480	1,656	2,090
Performance-based as percentage of total	4	7	8	12	14	15	17	19	25
BFI (mio. DKK)	80	148.5	170	261.25	295.5	331.5	370	414	522.5
BFI in percentage of total	1	2	2	3	3	4	4	5	6

Performance-based Research Funding in Denmark: The Adoption and Translation of the Norwegian Model

Article Category: Research Paper

Publié en ligne: 07 déc. 2018

Pages: 20 - 30

Reçu: 31 août 2018

Accepté: 25 oct. 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0018

Mots clés
Norwegian Model, Performance based funding, Bibliometrics

© 2018 Kaare Aagaard, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Development in the allocation of core funding (mio. DKK and %).

Performance-based Research Funding in Denmark: The Adoption and Translation of the Norwegian Model

Article Category: Research Paper

Publié en ligne: 07 déc. 2018

Pages: 20 - 30

Reçu: 31 août 2018

Accepté: 25 oct. 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0018

Mots clésNorwegian Model, Performance based funding, Bibliometrics

© 2018 Kaare Aagaard, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Development in the allocation of core funding (mio. DKK and %).

Mots clés
Norwegian Model, Performance based funding, Bibliometrics