Purpose: The main goal of this study is to outline and analyze the Danish adoption and translation of the Norwegian Publication Indicator. Design/methodology/approach: The study takes the form of a policy analysis mai...Purpose: The main goal of this study is to outline and analyze the Danish adoption and translation of the Norwegian Publication Indicator. Design/methodology/approach: The study takes the form of a policy analysis mainly drawing on document analysis of policy papers, previously published studies and grey literature. Findings: 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. Research limitation: 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. Practical implications: The analysis may feed into current policy discussions on the future of the Danish BFI. Originality/value: 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.展开更多
文摘Purpose: The main goal of this study is to outline and analyze the Danish adoption and translation of the Norwegian Publication Indicator. Design/methodology/approach: The study takes the form of a policy analysis mainly drawing on document analysis of policy papers, previously published studies and grey literature. Findings: 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. Research limitation: 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. Practical implications: The analysis may feed into current policy discussions on the future of the Danish BFI. Originality/value: 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.
