Quantitative research assessment and its unintended consequences | Scholarly Publications

Abstract:  This dissertation investigates the complex dynamics and unintended consequences of quantitative research assessment, focusing on Lithuania’s ambitious transition from a post-Soviet to an integrated global science system over the past three decades. The thesis traces the development of performance-based funding systems (PBFS) and other metric-based policies, which were implemented to drive internationalisation and enhance the perceived quality of national research.

The thesis argues that this reliance on quantitative indicators—such as journal impact factors and the prestige of book publishers—has produced a range of adverse outcomes. Through a multi-level, mixed-methods approach combining policy analysis, bibliometric data, and in-depth interviews, the study uncovers:

• The institutional strategies developed to maximise state funding, such as the proliferation of domestic journals to ‘game’ the system.

• The creation of reactive and often inconsistent policy instruments, such as the ‘suspended journals’ list, to counteract these institutional behaviours.

• The fundamental inconsistencies in evaluating scholarly books based on the fluctuating and subjective notion of publisher prestige.

• The powerful influence of scientific elites and intermediary organisations in shaping policy, leading to conflicts between disciplines and a risk-averse policy environment.

Overall, this thesis provides a critical analysis of how a well-intentioned push for excellence can lead to systemic dysfunction. It offers crucial lessons for other nations, particularly smaller and transitioning ones, on the importance of developing responsible, context-aware research assessment frameworks that support rather than distort genuine scholarly inquiry.