Publishing for pay: Longitudinal analysis of financial incentives for publishing “high” quality papers

• In Event: Research and Writing Standards and Violations in Today's Academy

Proposal

Introduction/Lit Review:
Several studies have examined the impact of incentives on changes in the publication patterns of academics. Although causality between economic incentives, cannot be easily established (Authors, XXXX; Hammarfelt & de Rijcke, 2015; Osuna et al., 2011; Sīle, 2016), there is evidence suggesting bibliometric measurements offering economic incentives are associated with shifts in publication patterns.

To date, most studies are primarily focused on system-level incentives (PBF) and overall publication outcomes at the sectoral level. There is a body of literature on academic motivation and responsiveness to performance-based salary schemes (e.g., Authors, XXXX; Andersen & Pallesen, 2008; Kim & Bak, 2020; Osterloh & Frey, 2007). Some empirical findings indicate the introduction of performance-based funding may have influenced scholars' publication behavior, for example by encouraging publishing in outlets rewarded under the funding model (Authors, XXXX; Aagaard, 2015; AlShareef et al., 2023; Deutz, Drachen, Drongstrup, Opstrup, & Wien, 2021; Himanen & Puuska, 2022).

However, empirical evidence on how monetary rewards influence individual-level publishing behavior and patterns remains scarce and mixed. Some studies suggest paying salary bonuses based on publishing activity leads to an increase in publication productivity (e.g., Demir, 2018; Bautista-Puig et al., 2021), while others suggest the opposite (e.g., Munrow et al., 2025). Even though system-level studies may show that publication patterns shift in response to system incentives, they have not adequately demonstrated causally why or how these changes occur within universities (Authors, XXXX).

Data. Research questions, & Methods:
Finland, a country with over a decade (since 2013) of a national performance-based funding (PBF) system which includes funding based on the number and quality publications of their academic staff, uses the ‘Publication Forum’ (in Finnish, ‘Julkaisufoorumi’, (JUFO)), a bibliometric rating system coordinated by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (The Federation), to rate publications produced by Finnish-based academics. Refereed scientific publications (peer-reviewed journal articles and monograph/book chapters) are evaluated on a scale 0 to 3 (0 lowest, 3 highest) based on the based on scientific impact, typical publication practices within specific disciplinary fields, and the scientific value enjoyed by the respective channels within the scientific community (Publication Forum 2018). JUFO was formally adopted into the national funding formula starting in 2015 as part of the evaluation of scholarly productivity. In 2023, 1.999 billion EUR was allocated via the national funding formula for universities in total; or just under 280 million EUR based on publication production (14% of PBF).

Unlike other Finnish universities, two universities (pseudonyms Alpha and Beta) offer direct financial incentives to their academic staff since 2017 in the form of publication-based salary bonuses. In addition, these universities along with all other Finnish universities, except one (pseudonym Gamma), align their internal funding distribution mechanism with the national funding model for publications (i.e. JUFO ratings).

Official documents detail the financial incentive schemes and conditions for paying publication bonuses from Alpha and Beta Universities. These documents outline the financial incentives (salary bonus for publications) and specific award criteria. In terms of publication and personnel data, we use the official educational statistics portal for Finland (Education Statistics Finland “Vipunen”). This data contains the number of publications by JUFO level, field, and university as well as the numbers of academic staff by field and university. We have extracted these data for Alpha, Beta, and Gamma from 2015 to 2024.

Our two research questions are:
RQ1: Is there a change in publication patterns of JUFO 2 and 3 articles over the ten-year period?
RQ1A: Is there a change by disciplinary fields (e.g., STEM vs SS&H)?
RQ2: Did the offer of financial incentives affect the output of high “quality” articles?
RQ2A: Is there a change by disciplinary fields (e.g. STEM vs SS&H)?

We compare the publication patterns of Alpha and Beta universities against the patterns of Gamma university (as “control”). We conduct the analysis in two ways. First (RQ1), we describe (descriptive data) the changes within the three institutions from 2015-2024. Second (RQ2), using Difference-in-Differences (DID) models we estimate the effects of the policy change (introduction of incentives by Alpha and Beta in 2017). DID models are used to assess the causal effect of an event by comparing the set of units (universities in our study) where the event occurred in relation to units where the event did not occur. In our models, we use the times before/after the treatment (introduction of financial incentive) to evaluate its effect on the outcome (number of JUFO 2/3 publications).

Theory:
Guiding this study is the crowding in/out theory (Frey, 1997; Frey & Jegen, 2001) who argue financial rewards are expected to affect behavior in two ways; 1) a relative price effect where financial reward incentives behavior and 2) a “crowding in/out effect” that works through its impact on intrinsic motivation. External rewards “crowd out” intrinsic motivation and reduce the work effort if individuals perceive the award as a device to control their behavior. If rewards are perceived as supportive, they can “crowd in” intrinsic motivation and increase the work effort towards the incentive offered. Anderson & Pallesen (2008) demonstrated how this theory can be used via examining the positive (and negative) influence incentives have on the number of publications produced.

Preliminary Findings
Our approach (models) shows promise, but unfortunately the models could not be finalized before the proposal deadline (26.8.2025). Preliminary, we found some change in JUFO 2 and 3 publications due to financial incentive, but it appears mostly captured within disciplines, not institution wide. Further refinement on models continues and expected completion is September (well in advance of CIES meeting).

Importance/significance to the field:
This study holds significance by offering a rare longitudinal perspective on how financial incentives influence individual publishing behavior. Analyzing data from two Finnish universities who implemented publication-based salary bonuses, and using a third university as a control, the study seeks to establish a causal or semi-causal relationship between monetary rewards and academic productivity—something prior research has struggled to confirm.

Author

• Charles Mathies, Old Dominion University