Abstract
In 2015, a new ex-post incentive policy was introduced in Turkey to increase the academic productivity of researchers. This convergent parallel design study aims to find an answer to the following research questions: (1) What are the downsides of ex-post funding system (EPFS) in academic publishing among Turkish researchers? (2) What are the contributions of the EPFS to academic publishing in Turkey? The results indicated that the EPFS was a motivating factor that enabled researchers to spare more time for academic studies. Besides, the EPFS created a more competitive environment; therefore, some researchers were influenced by this competitive environment and tended towards academic studies. It was concluded that the EPFS increased the number of articles in national journals, articles in international journals (indexed in indices other than SSCI/SCI/AHCI), papers presented in the congresses and projects. The data revealed that besides its positive contribution to academic prolificacy, the EPFS had undesirable and expected effects as well. Especially, the number of publications in potentially fake journals and questionable conferences increased after EPFS. Another apparent downside of the EPFS was that researchers with no contribution to the article were included as an author for academic work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aagaard, K., Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2015). Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv003.
Aboal, D., & Tacsir, E. (2017). The impact of subsidies on researcher’s productivity: Evidence from a developing country. Research Evaluation, 26(4), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx031.
Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C. M., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2010). The governance and performance of universities: Evidence from Europe and the US. Economic Policy, 25(61), 7–59. https://doi.org/10.3386/w14851.
Andersen, L. B., & Pallesen, T. (2008). “Not just for the money?” How financial incentives affect the number of publications at Danish research institutions. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490801887889.
Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance-an international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.003.
Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Retrieved from http://ssau.ru:8080/files/science/crpd/CriteriaBillPublishers2015.pdf.
Beall, J. (2018). Potential predatory scholarly open-access journals. Retrieved from https://beallslist.weebly.com.
Bence & Oppenheim. (2005). The evolution of the UK’s research assessment exercise: publications, performance and perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 37(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620500211189.
Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall’s list better understanding predatory publishers. College & Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132–135.
Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2016). Performance-based funding models and researcher behavior: An analysis of the influence of the Norwegian Publication Indicator at the individual level. Research Evaluation, 25(4), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv047.
Bonaccorsi, A., & Secondi, L. (2017). The determinants of research performance in European universities: a large scale multilevel analysis. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1147–1178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s111.
Bourdien, P. (1990). Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bowles, P. (2013). Capitalism. Milton Park: Routledege.
Butler, L. (2003). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications-the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00007-0.
Butler, L. (2004). What happens when funding is linked to publication counts? In H. F. Moed, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 389–405). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Butler, L. (2017). Response to van den Besselaar et al.: What happens when the Australian context is misunderstood. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 919–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.017.
Chudnovsky, D., Lopez, A., Rossi, M. A., & Ubfal, D. (2008). Money for science? The impact of research grants in Argentina. IDB working paper series: 224. Inter-American Development Bank.
Colugnati, F., Firpo, S., de Castro, P. F., Sepulveda, J. E., & Salles-Filho, S. (2014). A propensity score approach in the impact evaluation on scientific production in Brazilian biodiversity research: The BIOTA Program. Scientometrics, 101(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1397-1.
Council of Higher Education (CoHE, 2015) The Republic of Turkey, regulation on the academic incentive allowance. Turkish Official Journal. 18 December 2015. Retrieved from http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2015/12/20151218.htm&main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2015/12/20151218.htm.
Council of Higher Education (CoHE, 2016). The Republic of Turkey, regulation on the academic incentive allowance. Turkish Official Journal. 31 December 2016. Retrieved from http://yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/30318223/Akademik_Tesvik_Odenegi_Yonetmeligi_31_12_2016_Resmi_Gazete_Yayin_Tarihi.pdf.
Council of Higher Education (CoHE, 2017). Council of higher education statistics. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/.
Crawford, W. (2014a). Ethics and access 1: The sad case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites & Insights, 14(4), 1–14.
Crawford, W. (2014b). Journals, journals and wannabes: Investigating the list. Cites & Insights, 14(7), 1–24.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Boer, H., Jongbloed, B. W. A., Benneworth, S., Cremonini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A., et al. (2015). Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems. Enschede: University of Twente.
European Commission (2010). Assessing Europe’s university-based research. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2oNukmM.
Fedderke, J. W., & Goldschmidt, M. (2015). Does massive funding support of researchers work? Evaluating the impact of the South African research chair funding initiative. Research Policy, 44(2), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.09.009.
Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2011). Changing incentives to publish. Science, 333(6043), 702–703. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197286.
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MINE.0000005155.70870.bd.
Good, B., Vermeulen, N., Tiefenthaler, B., & Arnold, E. (2015). Counting quality? The Czech performance-based research funding system. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu035.
Gorman, P. (2003). Motivation and emotion. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203694978.
Heywood, J. S., Wei, X., & Ye, G. (2011). Piece rates for professors. Economics Letters, 113(3), 285–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.08.005.
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007.
Himanen, L., Auranen, O., Puuska, H.-M., & ve Nieminen, M. (2009). Influence of research funding and science policy on university research performance: A comparison of five countries. Science and Public Policy, 36(6), 419–430. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209x461006.
Iqbal, M. Z., & Mahmood, A. (2011). Factors related to low research productivity at higher education level. Asian Social Science, 7(2), 188–193. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n2p188.
Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1168–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.005.
Jiménez-Contreras, E., De-Moya-Anegón, F., & Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain: the impact of the National Commission for Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy, 32(1), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00008-2.
Jung, J. (2014). Research productivity by career stage among Korean academics. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(2), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.889206.
Kameny, F. (1998). Authors with deep pockets: The ethics of subsidies. Journal of Scholarly Publıshıng, 29(2), 65–70.
Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150.
Kyvik, S., & Aksnes, D. W. (2015). Explaining the increase in publication productivity among academic staff: A generational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 40(8), 1438–1453. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1060711.
Laming, D. (2004). Understanding human motivation: What makes people tick?. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773383.ch16.
Moed, H. F. (2008). UK Research assessment exercises: Informed judgements on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74(1), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0108-1.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative & quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120–123. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199103000-00014.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11, 538–550.
Osuna, C., Cruz-Castro, L., & ve Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance. Scientometrics, 86(3), 575–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0312-7.
Quimbo, M. A. T., & Sulabo, E. C. (2014). Research productivity and its policy implications in higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1955–1971. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.818639.
Rijcke, S. D., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—A literature review. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv038.
Roth, D. (2017). Questionable conferences: Questionable conferences. Retrieved from (https://libguides.caltech.edu/c.php?g=512665&p=3503029).
Sandnes, F. E. (2018). Do Norwegian academics who publish more earn higher salaries? Scientometrics, 114(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2639-4.
Schneider, J. W. (2009). An outline of the bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in Norway. European Political Science, 8(3), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2009.19.
Schneider, J. W., Aagaard, K., & Bloch, C. W. (2016). What happens when funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? New insights from an evaluation of the Norwegian publication model. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv036.
Springer, S., Birch, K., & MacLeavy, J. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of neoliberalism. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730660.
Stephan, P. (2010). The economics of science. In B. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 217–273). North-Holland: Elsevier.
Stoyanov, S. (2017). A theory of human motivation. London: Macat Library. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781912282517.
Suo, Q. (2016). Chinese academic assessment and incentive system. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 297–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9643-3.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017). Does China need to rethink its metrics- and citations-based research reward policies? Scientometrics, 112(3), 1853–1857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2430-y.
Tonta, Y. (2017). TÜBİTAK Türkiye adresli uluslararasi bilimsel yayinlari teşvik (UBYT) programinin değerlendirilmesi. Ankara: TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM. Retrieved from http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~tonta/yayinlar/tonta-tubitak-ubyt-programinin-degerlendirilmesi.pdf.
Tonta, Y. (2018). Does monetary support increase the number of scientific papers? An interrupted time series analysis. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0002.
Turkish Statistical Institute [TurkStat] (2018) Research-development activities research. Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1082.
van den Besselaar, P., Heyman, U., & Sandström, U. (2017). Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler’s Australian case revisited. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 905–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.016.
Yoem, M. (2015). Limitations and possibilities of evaluation-based higher education reform in South Korea. In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on education and educational technologies (pp. 135–141). Retrieved from http://www.inase.org/library/2013/rhodes/bypaper/EET/EET-17.pdf.
Yuret, T. (2017). Do researchers pay attention to publication subsidies? Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.010.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
Data collection tools and informed consents were reviewed by the Cumhuriyet Universty Research Ethics Commission and allowed by the ethics commission.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Demir, S.B. Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers. Scientometrics 116, 2053–2068 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2833-4
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2833-4