Recognition and reward in the academy

Abstract

Purpose-The publication oeuvre of a researcher carries great value when academic careers are assessed, and being recognised as a successful candidate is usually equated with being a productive author. Yet, how publications are valued in the context of evaluating careers is so far an understudied topic. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach-Through a content analysis of assessment reports in three disciplinesbiomedicine, economics and historythis paper analyses how externalities are used to evaluate publication oeuvres. Externalities are defined as features such as reviews and bibliometric indicators, which can be assessed without evaluating the epistemological claims made in the actual text. Findings-All three fields emphasise similar aspects when assessing: authorship, publication prestige, temporality of research, reputation within the field and boundary keeping. Yet, how these facets of quality are evaluated, and the means through which they are assessed differs between disciplines. Moreover, research fields orient themselves according to different temporal horizons, i.e. history looks to the past and economics to the future when research is evaluated. Research limitations/implications-The complexities involved in the process of evaluating candidates are also reflected in the findings, and while the comparative approach taken effectively highlights domain specific differences it may also hide counter-narratives, and subtle intradisciplinary discussion on quality. Originality/value-This study offers a novel perspective on how publications are valued when assessing academic careers. Especially striking is how research across different fields is evaluated through different time horizons. This finding is significant in the debate on more overarching and formal systems of research evaluation.

Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities

“…A recent survey conducted in the UK found that academics tailor their publication practices to align with their institutional evaluation criteria 6. These criteria, however, may include metrics that are known to be problematic for assessing researchers 7. Current incentives and rewards may also be misaligned with the needs of society.…”

Three Commonly Utilized Scholarly Databases and a Social Network Site Provide Different, But Related, Metrics of Pharmacy Faculty Publication

“…Scholarly metrics, or bibliometrics, generally refers to the analysis of individual productivity and impact through publication and citation counts [1]. Broadly, methods of research performance and impact evaluation for the purposes of promotion, merit, and tenure have been offered that include the Hirsch Index (H-index), journal impact factor, number of publications, authorship position on publication, and citation rates [2][3][4]. Such metrics are used as "judgment devices" by reviewers and the scientific community in evaluation of an individual researcher and the impact of their work [4].…”

Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities?

“…Similar arguments have led Crossik (2016) to emphasize the central position of the monograph in the culture and ecology in the humanities and most of the social sciences, and Bonaccorsi (2018) to state the books are the most important source in the SSH. Qualitative research by Hammarfelt (2017) illustrates the prestige of monographs in the field of history, and the commonness of book chapters in both history and economics. Similarly, Edwards (2012) argues that edited volumes allow for authoritative comparative perspectives across time, geographic localities and disciplinary borders.…”