Introduction
Imagine this: two research institutions. Both are state-funded, both have experienced researchers, and both have received stable funding for years. But starting in 2026, one of them will receive 48% more money, and each of its employees’ salaries will increase by 8,000 hryvnias per month. The other will face the threat of closure.
What's the difference between them? Publications.
In Ukraine, a reform took place in 2024–2026 that changed the rules of the game forever. For the first time in more than 30 years, the government introduced a transparent system for evaluating scientific work—and tied real funding to it.
The total amount of additional funding allocated based on the results of the evaluation exceeded 3.28 billion hryvnia.
Nowadays, publishing activity is more than just a line on a resume. It is your institution's financial strategy.
How It Works: Three Channels of Influence
Publications affect on funding not one, and three parallel by various means at the same time. Let's take a closer look every.
Channel 1. Formula for State Funding of Universities (Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1146)
Each university receives state funding not simply “based on the number of students.” A portion of the budget is allocated according to a formula that takes into account the institution’s performance indicators—two of which are directly related to publications.
Research Performance Indicator It depends on the volume of research funding—grants, contracts, and international projects. And it is practically impossible to secure this funding without a strong publication record: no grantor will fund an institution that publishes nothing.
Measure of International Recognition — This means being included in the QS, THE, and ARWU rankings. And these rankings directly take into account the number of publications per faculty member, citations, and the reputation of research. In other words, more high-quality publications → a higher ranking → a higher funding ratio → more money from the government.
Channel 2. State Accreditation of Research Institutions (Order of the Ministry of Education and Science No. 1485)
This is the newest and most influential mechanism. In 2024–2025, the Ministry of Education and Science conducted a nationwide evaluation of 664 research institutions and universities using a standardized methodology. Each institution was assigned to one of four groups: A, B, C, or D.
The amount of additional base funding for 2026 and beyond depends on this group.
Among the nearly 40 indicators considered in the evaluation, publications in Scopus and Web of Science carry the greatest weight. And here’s an important point: not all publications are equal.
An article in a Q1 or Q2 journal has a weighting factor 1,5. Article in Q3 or Q4 — only 0,75. In other words, one publication in a top-tier Q1 journal is equivalent to two articles in a lower-tier journal.
Channel 3. Competitive Funding: Grants from the National Fund for Science and Technology, the Ministry of Education and Science, and Horizon Europe
The third channel is grants. And here, one’s publication record is literally the ticket to entry.
No grant committee—whether Ukrainian (NFDU, MES) or European (Horizon Europe)—will take seriously an application from a researcher or institution without a proven track record of publications. This is a fundamental prerequisite for trust.
A study by Hladchenko & Costas (2025) showed that: the share of articles in Scopus funded by Ukrainian government agencies increased from 8.6% in 2020–2021 to 11.9% in 2022–2023. Participation in international grant programs carries weighting factors ranging from 2.0 to 3.0—the highest values among all indicators. Even a submitted application for Horizon Europe is already counted as a plus.
Which publications "carry more weight"—and why does it matter?
Not all posts are treated the same by the system. And if you plan to publish content, it’s important to understand exactly where to focus your efforts.
The magazine's section is what matters most
The evaluation methodology clearly differentiates publications by quartile. The difference is exactly x2: one article in a top-tier Q1 journal is equivalent to two articles in a lower-tier journal. This is critically important when planning a publication strategy.
Open access is a bonus, not just a fad
Open Access publications have a separate indicator in the methodology with a weight of 0.35. These are additional points on top of the base score per quartile. The government’s reasoning is simple: open-access publications increase the visibility of Ukrainian research worldwide and boost citation counts—which, in the long run, improves rankings in the QS/THE and influences Formula No. 1146. Open Access works to benefit two funding channels simultaneously.
Things that aren't directly counted—but are still important
The h-index, the number of citations, and a journal’s impact factor are not direct indicators in the evaluation methodology. However, they have an indirect influence:
- A journal's quartile is determined specifically based on citations via SCImago or JCR;
- Your personal h-index increases your chances of receiving grants, where experts evaluate you as a researcher;
- The QS and THE rankings, which are weighted at a factor of 1.1 in the state funding formula, directly take bibliometric indicators into account.
In short: The system does not formally calculate your h-index—but your h-index shapes the context in which the system calculates everything else.
We can help you choose the right publication format for your goal—whether it’s a performance review, a grant, an institutional ranking, or academic advancement.
Personalized selection of a Scopus or Web of Science journal, preparation of the article, and support through the publication process.
Current topics from the existing catalog and the opportunity to contribute to the preparation of a research article.
Not sure which format is right for you? Get a free consultation →
Two case studies that explain it all
Case 1. Institute molecular biology and geneticists NAS Ukraine — group A 
This institution has consistently invested in publishing, international collaboration, and research quality. The result of the evaluation was the highest rating: Group A.
Financial implications for 2026:
- Additional funding — approximately 35.2 million UAH;
- Growth in the institution's budget—+48% compared to 2025;
- Each researcher receives a salary supplement of 8,000 UAH per month.
This isn't some abstract "improvement." This is actual money for equipment, research, and staff salaries.
Case 2. Institute of Physical and Organic Chemistry and Coal Chemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine — Group G 
A different picture emerges. The institute received low scores on 37 criteria, including publication activity, and was placed in the lowest group, Group G—scoring less than 25 out of 100.
Consequences:
- The institute does not receive additional base funding;
- Is deemed not to have passed the state certification;
- By September 1, 2026, its future is to be determined—most likely through reorganization or merger with another institution.
It should be noted that the institute was relocated from Donetsk (in 2014) and lost its material and technical resources. The methodology provides for a correction factor of +15% in such cases. But even this did not compensate for the critically low publication output.
This is a harsh but honest message from the system: Publishing is not an option, but a matter of survival.
How the World Looks: Ukraine Is Not Alone in This Line of Thinking
It’s important to understand that Ukraine didn’t invent the wheel. It is simply following a pan-European trend.
United Kingdom (Research Excellence Framework) allocates approximately £2 billion per year based specifically on the quality of publications. A “world-leading” article carries four times as much weight as an article of a lower level.
Poland — The model most similar to ours evaluates academic disciplines every 4 years and assigns them a category: A+, A, B+, B, or C. Institutions with a C category lose the right to operate doctoral programs and award academic degrees.
The overall trend is clear: across Europe, the quality and quantity of publications are becoming the primary criteria for the allocation of research funding. Ukraine has simply adopted this standard.
What does this mean for you specifically?
If you are a researcher, professor, or head of a department or institute, your publications currently influence your institution’s funding through three channels simultaneously:
Formula No. 1146 — based on indicators of research activity and international recognition, which are factored into the university’s budget;
Certification No. 1485 — through Group A/B/C/D, which determines additional funding and individual salary supplements for each employee;
Grants — through publication output as a basic requirement for receiving funding from the National Fund for Science and Technology, the Ministry of Education and Science, and Horizon Europe.
The system is already up and running. The next certification cycle is just around the corner.
Conclusion
Ukraine has transitioned from a “funding based on rates and square footage” model to a “funding based on results” model. And those results are, first and foremost, publications.
This isn't bad news. These are fair rules of the game, where those who do high-quality work and get published in reputable journals gain a real advantage—financial, institutional, and reputational.
If you want to enhance your institution’s publication profile, the team at the Article Academy is ready to help at every stage—from selecting a journal to the final publication.
Leave a request — and we'll review your situation on a case-by-case basis.
