Registering research results (NVA)

The Norwegian Publication Indicator, popularly named 'tellekantsystemet', was introduced to encourage higher education institutions to publish their research more often and more internationally. 

Up until 2024, funds were distributed between institutions on the basis of publication points. This policy was abolished by the Norwegian government in 2023, but the publication indicator in terms of approved academic publication channels on Level 1 or 2 and reporting of publications in such channels remains in place. The intention behind the current system is to stimulate researchers to publish in distinguished channels internationally and to document this activity. 

At the core of the model is the notion of 'publication channel'. The publication channel is the medium by which your work is communicated to the public, usually journals, publishers, or web sites.

As noted above, the Norwegian model incorporates a list of publication channels regarded as academic or scientific ("vitenskapelig"). There are both national and international publication channels on the list. All channels on the list have been vetted by scientific panels invited by the National Board of Scholarly Publishing. Channels on the list are thus regarded as satisfying a minimum level of quality.

Works published in a publication channel on the list can be awarded publication points, provided they fulfill certain criteria. The list is further divided into two levels: an upper level reflecting the most highly regarded publication channels, and a base level for the mainstream channels. The main idea behind the two levels is to encourage researchers and institutions to publish their research results in the most acclaimed publication channels.

In order to receive publication points, the publication must comply with these criteria as well as being in an approved publication channel:

• The work must be peer-reviewed
• The work must be accessible to interested parties
• There must be ‘new insight’
• The work must not have been previously published
• The author and the author's institution must be clearly stated in the publication
• The publication channel must be clearly marked with name and/or identifier

This means that publication points are awarded to the institution as stated in the publication, regardless of where the researcher is actually working at the time of publication. Further, points can only be granted for the year printed in the publication itself, irrespective of the true year of publication, if they differ.

Books and articles

Different disciplines can have different publication traditions. A historian might write a single book every four years, whereas a microbiologist may very well publish many articles every year, each with multiple co-authors. 

One of the major dividing lines in publishing patterns goes between the 'article subjects' and the 'book subjects'. A simple diagram can be made:

Chart adapted from UHR, 2004

The table is by no means exact or complete, but gives a clear impression that there are differences between the subjects. When weighting publications and awarding points, we need to make sure that the items that can be compared. Most people would agree that there is more ‘work’ involved in a single author monograph than in a short article for a national journal. The obvious solution is to award different points to different kinds of publications. In Norway we have this distribution:

*For simplicity called 'points' here. In reality we are dealing with author weightings.

This distribution is for level 1 of academic publication channels. For level 2, the highest ranking publication channels, there is a different distribution:

We see that the system indicates that writing an article in an anthology has the lowest ‘work load’ or academic status, whereas writing a monograph has the highest. Level 2 differentiates more than level 1, with a considerable increase in points over level 1 for journal articles, but only a slight increase for anthologies or book chapters.

The reason for this shift in focus is based on the publication patterns for the different subjects; the typical 'book subjects' have traditionally fewer publication channels to choose from, and as the ratio between levels 1 and 2 is fixed in the Norwegian system, one could argue that it is harder to get accepted by a level 2 journal within the 'journal subjects' than it is to be accepted by a level 2 publisher in the ‘book subjects’.

Further complicating the picture here is the fact that all researchers are supposed to have equal opportunities to find a suitable level 2 publication channel in their field. As a result, you may find that in some areas there is a relatively large number of national level 2 publishers, such as in Nordic studies and classics, because there are basically not too many publishers to choose from, while for e.g. molecular biology there will be thousands of publication channels available at level 1, but only the very few best ones at level 2.

As a co-author of a publication, you receive a share of the publication. If you are one of two authors, your share will be half, and if one of four authors, it will be a quarter. If you are an author with more than one affiliation, your total share is split between the number of affiliations you have listed in the publication. Non-Norwegian institutions and authors are also counted, although they are not part of the Norwegian publication system; any shares awarded to them will effectively be lost.

More details can be found on the Norwegian Publication Indicator website.

Aagaard, K., Bloch, C., Schneider, J. W., Henriksen, D., Ryan, T. K., & Lauridsen, P. S. (2014). Evaluering af den norske publiceringsindikator. Aarhus University.

Det nasjonale publiseringsutvalget. (2024). Kvalitet i vitenskapelig publisering: Organisering og innretning av publiseringsindikatoren, publiseringsstatistikken og kanalregisteret. UHR. https://www.uhr.no/_f/p1/i0c07c3dd-6f9f-4a4d-a534-37e2179a3807/kvalitet-i-vitenskapelig-publisering-31-mai-2024.pdf

Universities Norway (UHR). (2004). A bibliometric model for performance-based budgeting of research institutions : Recommendation from the committee appointed by the Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions on assignment from the Ministry of Education and Research. UHR.