CARDIOVASCULAR JOURNAL OF AFRICA • Vol 23, No 8, September 2012
426
AFRICA
journals, higher educational institutions encourage academics to
publish in accredited journals. However, at most of the higher
educational institutions, authors only receive a proportion of
the total subsidy. In general, the higher educational institutions
receive the major share of the funding, although this does differ
between the different higher educational institutions (see section
titled
‘
Different policies within and between South African
institutions’).
As discussed above, the policies also differ between higher
educational institutions worldwide. For example, in Spain the
individual researcher is the recipient of the rewards for research
outputs,
6
whereas in Finland it is the institution and not the
individual who benefits.
1
In Australia, similar to South Africa,
the various higher educational institutions differ in the policies
they have adopted.
3,13
Some have chosen to reward the individual
researcher primarily, whereas at others the institutions are the
major beneficiary.
3
Different policies within and between South African
institutions
What is provided below are some examples (those which are
accessible) of the different policies adopted by the various higher
educational institutions in order to distribute the subsidy block
grants received from the Department of Higher Education and
Training based on research outputs:
•
Fifty per cent to faculty, of which 70% to individual research-
er and 30% to faculty for publications in international jour-
nals, or of which 50% to researcher and 50% to faculty for
publications in South African journals.
•
Proportion of university research budget is distributed to each
faculty based on the units produced by each of these facul-
ties. Each faculty individual research committee decides on
the disbursement to the schools. Schools then decide whether
to distribute to departments, divisions and/or individual
researchers. It is clearly stipulated that these funds may only
be used for research-related or academic activities and that the
funds may not be used to supplement salaries.
•
Sixty per cent to the individual researcher, 15% to faculty or
department, 15% to research office, 10% to vice chancellor’s
office. It is clearly stipulated that these funds can only be used
for research and research-related activities. No cash payments
are made to individual researchers.
•
The university research committee allocates to each faculty
a proportion of the funds received in the annual block grant.
The proportion awarded to each faculty is based on a formula
which considers the accredited outputs of each faculty and the
throughput of postgraduate students, and includes recognition
of outputs from the arts (such as design, compositions, exhibi-
tions and performances).
•
One higher educational institution incentivises researchers
by rewarding top researchers with annual research awards of
up to R500 000. The recipients of these awards are allowed
to keep half for personal use, but have to use the rest for
their research. However, the exact source of funding for these
research awards is not clear.
Conclusions and proposals
As government policies on research funding of institutions
have a direct impact on the behavior of academics with regard
to research outputs, there is a need to refine these policies in
order to produce the desired academic behaviours. To avoid the
possibility of producing quantity at the expense of quality, an
element of quality needs to be incorporated into the policy. A
proposal, based on the Spanish system, would be to incorporate a
higher weighting for publications in higher impact factor and/or
rank in discipline journals. It is probable that such a systemwould
also address the disincentive provided by the current formula,
to collaborate internationally (as international collaboration
generally results in increased quality of publications).
In addition, the potential perverse incentive created by the
awarding of developmental grants to underperforming institutions
could be minimised by substantially reducing the monetary value
of the developmental grants. Moreover, developmental grants
should not be awarded on a continual basis. In other words,
an institution that receives a developmental grant has to show
substantial annual improvements in order to warrant further
developmental grants.
A bolder proposal, which would support the curtailment
of developmental grants, is that more funds should be given
to those higher educational institutions where most of the
publications are produced, in order to ensure that more research
will be done at these institutions. Many believe that a greater
incentive to individuals would be provided if a larger proportion
(
although probably not all) of the subsidy earned was granted
to the individual(s) who generated the subsidy. However,
these funds should be used for research purposes and not
for the supplementation of salaries (bearing in mind the tax
implications). Importantly, a way forward is to take heed of the
evidence provided and thereby avoid the mistakes made by some,
and follow the successful examples of others.
ANGELA J WOODIWISS,
Cardiovascular Pathophysiology and Genomics Research
Unit, School of Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
References
1.
Adam D. The counting house.
Nature
2002;
415
: 726–729.
2.
Axtell J.
The Pleasures of Academe. A Celebration of Defense of Higher
Education.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998: 53.
3.
Butler L. Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications –
the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts.
Res Policy
2003;
32
: 143–155.
4.
Corbyn Z. Researchers may play dirty to beat REF.
Times Higher
Educat
2008;
1831
: 6.
5.
Geuna A, Martin BR. University research evaluation and funding: an
international comparison.
Minerva
2003;
41
: 277–304.
6.
Jiménez-Contreras E, Delgado López-Cózar E, Ruiz-Pérez R,
Fernández VM. Impact-factor rewards affect Spanish research.
Nature
2003;
417
: 898.
7.
Online:
8.
Pillay P. The South African experience with developing and imple-
menting a funding formula for the tertiary education system. A case
study prepared for a regional training conference on improving tertiary
education in sub-Saharan Africa: ‘Things that work!’
Accra
,
September
2003; 1–13.
9.
Lawrence PA. The politics of publication.
Nature
2003;
422
: 259–261.
10.
Lomnicki A. Impact factors reward and promote excellence.
Nature
2003;
424
: 487.
11.
Törnqvist TE. Impact factors aren’t top journals’ sole attraction.
Nature
2003;
423
: 480.
