Publish or Perish: How Are Research and Reputation Related?

Linton, Jonathan D.; Tierney, Robert; Walsh, Steven T.

doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2011.09.001

Cited by 24 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The universities should be from a variety of different geographic locations to reflect possible differences in expectations and the nature of output in different countries. The data collection follows the same procedure as in Linton et al (2011), and hence it is only reviewed briefly here. There are a number of different ranking systems of both a regional and international nature (Aguillo, Bar-Ilan, Levene, & Ortega, 2010;Aguillo, Granadino, Ortega, & Fernandez, 2008).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…T. Solomon, personal communication, August 14, 2012;D. Hence, this paper examines research and researcher activity in different fields for highly regarded universities (Linton, Tierney, & Walsh, 2011). While citation and publication rate are frequently put forward as proxies of research quality and relevance (Anon, 1962;Clapham, 2005;de Meis, Velloso, Lannes, Carmo, & de Meis, 2003;De Rond & Miller, 2005;De Villiers & Malan, 1997;Good, 1964;Lofthouse, 1974;Mackay, 1974;Mitchell & Reichel, 1999;Nash & Walsh, 2000;Parchomovsky, 2000;Plümper & Radaelli, 2004;Qiu, 2010;Relman, 1977;Rhee, 2004;Smith, 2004;Yimin, 2001), differences between fields are not taken into account (Shin & Cummings, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What are Research Expectations? A Comparative Study of Different Academic Disciplines

Linton¹,

Tierney

Walsh

2012

Serials Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is intended to assist professors, administrators, librarians and other members of university level committees that must consider research expectations and research quality in academic fields that they lack. While this is not a problem for field experts, it is a difficulty when people are asked to make decisions in areas of study other than their own. This is commonly the case for senior university professors, librarians and administrators in regards to university wide decisions. The paper investigates this gap, through a study of 27 academic fields in 348 highly regarded universities. We find that there are almost always statistically significant differences in activity between academic fields, regardless of the metric one considers. However, it is possible to understand these differences by comparing the distribution of a known academic field to that of a field that one is not familiar with. Tables and information are provided to assist in the comparison of different fields of study on metrics such as: departmental publications and researcher level metrics of publications, citations, H-index, and total number of co-authors. The information can also be used to support decisions associated with promotion to senior posts such as endowed chairs and professorships. Information regarding specific universities and researchers are included in the data supplement.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What are Research Expectations? A Comparative Study of Different Academic Disciplines

Linton¹,

Tierney

Walsh

2012

Serials Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is also debate about the evaluation of research quality and quantity (Linton et al 2011) and a proliferation of concrete metrics such as citation counts, journal impact scores, Hirsch Indices, journal reputation studies, and internet citation rates can be used to assess research productivity and hence research reputation. Sociology evaluations, for example, tend to include books as well as journal articles, thus complicating the relation of publication to reputation (Clemens et al 1995).…”

Section: Defining Reputation: Organizational Academic and Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The rhetoric and reality of research reputation: ‘fur coat and no knickers’

O’Loughlin

MacPhail

Msetfi

2013

Studies in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation systems including global university rankings have been recently introduced as mechanisms for assessing overall academic quality, appraising research reputation and as a basis for funding and policy decisions. This study explores the concept of research reputation in terms of how it is defined, constituted and assessed. Eight professor-level academics from a range of disciplines based at European universities were interviewed. The findings highlight the subjective and multidimensional nature of research reputation, the role of informal and formal communications in creating and building research reputation, and the inter-relationships between academics, departments and institutions in enabling research reputation, individually and collectively. Given the problematic nature of research reputation, it is critical that higher education institutions engage in effective strategic reputation management at all levels. Consistency of understanding of research reputation should also exist among all users of ranking systems, particularly those involved in higher education policy and research strategy decision-making.

show abstract

“…There is a compelling urge to publish research across the globe in general and in the developing countries in particular, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the world population 5,6. The abundance of clinical data in developing countries provides great opportunities for research and publication, however, a lack of research training and expertise in terms of designing a research protocol design, rigorous methods for quality data collection and storage, relevant statistical analyses, and scholarly writing are major barriers to publishing research in reputed journals 7…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scientific output of departments, faculties, programs and ultimately the university contribute to the overall scientific stature of that particular institution 6,8. This scientific ranking helps outside stakeholders assess the quality of research 9.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies

Guraya¹,

Norman²,

Khoshhal³

et al. 2016

Pak J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:Generally, academic promotions, job retention, job mobility, and professional development of a medical faculty members are judged primarily by the growth in publication outputs. Universities and research institutions are more likely to recruit and promote those academics carrying voluminous résumés with larger number of published articles. This review elaborates the causes and consequences of the pressure to publish and the ways and means to cope with this paradigm.Methods:In 2015, database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, LISTA (EBSCO), Medline and Oxford University Library were searched for the English language full-text articles published during 2000-2015, by using MeSH terms “pressure to publish”, “urge to publish”, “research ethics”, “plagiarism”, “article retraction”, “medical field”. This search was further refined by selecting the articles in terms of relevancy and contents.Results:This research showed that some universities offer generous grants to researchers with a high h-index and with more publications in elite journals, which promise an enhanced prospect of citations and elevation in the scientific rankings of the funding institutions. This generates an involuntary obsession to publish with the primary intention to obtain promotions, high scientific rankings, and improved job security. This compelling pressure to publish results in widespread publication of non-significant research with a high index of plagiarism that eventually leads to an increased frequency of retractions.Conclusion:Research centers and academic institutions have an obligation to train their academics in sound scientific writing and to apprise them of the publication ethics and the grave consequences of plagiarism and research misconduct.

show abstract

Publish or Perish: How Are Research and Reputation Related?

Cited by 24 publications

References 67 publications

What are Research Expectations? A Comparative Study of Different Academic Disciplines

What are Research Expectations? A Comparative Study of Different Academic Disciplines

The rhetoric and reality of research reputation: ‘fur coat and no knickers’

Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About