The unintended consequences of performance-based incentives on inequality in scientists’ research performance

Hee-Je, Bak; Kim, Do Han

doi:10.1093/scipol/scy052

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context, our study sheds light on HEIs' sustainability engagement and achievements worldwide based on the underlying assumption of the MMM applied by HEIs [50,[77][78][79]. This is why we merged the two indicator types built by THE to assess university performance against the SDGs to raise awareness about having to make improvements in most HEIs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universities’ Reporting on SDGs: Using THE Impact Rankings to Model and Measure Their Contribution to Sustainability

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have voiced growing concerns about sustainability issues since Agenda 2030 was approved, but this is not enough for societal stakeholders seeking and delivering innovation and excellence. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by all UN Member States in 2015 as a universal call to action, and pose a challenge for HEIs as for the efforts made to fulfill them and knowing how to assess their performance. However, the metric management system implemented by HEIs quickly led to rankings emerging, which compare HEIs to metrics not related to the sustainability dimensions of the 17 SDGs. The main aim of the paper is to assess the level of reporting and alignment of SDG achievements with the overall the Times Higher Education (THE) ranking score. For this purpose, our study (i) models and quantifies the impact of HEIs’ disclosure of SDG information on HEIs’ overall THE Impact Rankings score, (ii) analyzes whether the best ranked universities are indeed significantly related to different SDGs than other not-so-well-ranked ones, and (iii) models the differences in the overall score and its alignment with distinct SDGs by dimensions, subjects, and geographical regions. In order to do so, a descriptive analysis, non-parametric tests, and linear and logistic regression analyses were performed. Our results reveal that the overall ranking is related to the reporting of HEIs’ SDG achievements. Moreover, the more positive actions related to health, education, industry, responsible consumption and production, climate action, and partnerships there were, the higher the position of HEIs in the general ranking was. However, we found differences between top-ranking universities and others in geographical location, disclosed information, and impact. Thus, the best-ranked universities are more committed to transferring knowledge to industry to satisfy its needs (SDG9), support strong institutions in their countries, and promote peace and justice (SDG16). Finally, SDG9 and SDG17 are the most relevant and constant SDGs when modeling the alignment of SDGs with HEIs’ dimensions (teaching, research, citations, industry income, international outlook) and subjects (technological and social sciences and humanities). HEIs integrating SDG actions into the strategic management of universities and, consequently, reporting their SDG performance to promote sustainability and contribute to sustainable development, is advisable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universities’ Reporting on SDGs: Using THE Impact Rankings to Model and Measure Their Contribution to Sustainability

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Publications in top journals strongly influence four fundamental dimensions of academic life: securing an initial academic job and keeping it, or where academics work (Fochler et al 2016); the speed of promotion and attaining tenured positions, or how academic careers develop (Hammarfelt 2017;Lindahl 2018); access to competitive research funding, or the scope of externally funded research (Bak and Kim 2019); and (in some systems) remuneration, or how academics are paid, from intra-institutional and extra-institutional comparative perspectives (including various additional supplements to salaries, from endowed chairs to cash bonuses; see performance-based incentives in Andersen and Pallesen 2008;Franzoni et al 2011;Bak and Kim 2019;and Mouritzen and Opstrup 2020).…”

Section: Elite Journals and Four Dimensions Of Academic Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Publications in top journals may determine the future of academics in one system's subsectors while being irrelevant in its other subsectors. There are substantial crossnational differences in the emphasis on using publications in such journals for hiring, promotion, and funding decisions (see Mouritzen and Opstrup 2020;Sutherland 2018;Fochler et al 2016;Bak and Kim 2019;and Lindahl 2018). And there are also differences between scientific fields, with stronger roles of elite journals in hard sciences and weaker roles in soft fields, and between more article-oriented and book-oriented subfields within the same fields, especially in social sciences and the humanities (Hammarfelt 2017).…”

Section: Elite Journals and Four Dimensions Of Academic Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, while the top higher education journals are increasingly flooded with submissions, journals closer to the bottom of the "pecking order" fight to attract authors. The reason is simple: location matters for individuals (Mouritzen and Opstrup 2020), institutions (Sutherland 2018), and countries (Bak and Kim 2019;Kwiek 2020a), subject to incessant ranking and assessment procedures-not everywhere, but in many countries.…”

Section: Elite Journals and Academic Careersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The prestige economy of higher education journals: a quantitative approach

Kwiek

2020

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study addresses stratification in the global higher education research community and the changing geography of country affiliations in six elite journals. The distribution of country affiliations is analyzed from a longitudinal perspective (1996-2018), and fulltime and part-time authors in the field are contrasted. The prestige maximization model and principal-agent theory provide the theoretical framework for the study, which examines 6334 articles published in six elite journals in the context of 21,442 articles in 41 core journals. The findings indicate that about 3.3% of academics have authored at least five articles (full-timers). These authors constitute the publishing core of the research community, while the 80% who have authored one article (part-timers) constitute its periphery. Higher Education (HE) and Studies in Higher Education (SHE) emerge as elite global journals, with an increasing share of non-Anglo-Saxon authors. Previously globally invisible countries became visible almost exclusively through HE and SHE. Global trends include the diminishing role of American researchers and the increasing role of researchers from Continental Europe, East Asia, and the cluster of 66 "other" countries. The single biggest affiliation loser is the United States, which had 42.5% of country affiliations in 1996-2003 but only 26.9% in 2012-2018. This reflects both the increasing share of non-American affiliations and the increasing yearly volume of HE and SHE publications, in which US academics tend not to publish massively.

show abstract

“…W szczególności model ten tworzy silny związek pomiędzy prestiżem indywidualnym i instytucjonalnym: "maksymalizując swój indywidualny prestiż, naukowcy jednocześnie maksymalizują prestiż swoich wydziałów i instytucji" (Melguizo i Strober 2007: 635). Wynika z tego, że osoby, które przyczyniają się do podnoszenia prestiżu swoich instytucji, są premiowane wyższymi wynagrodzeniami (Bak i Kim 2019), ponieważ większa liczba publikacji w prestiżowych czasopismach i bardziej prestiżowe granty badawcze podnoszą prestiż instytucjonalny. (Teoria stałego prestiżu wydziałów zaproponowana przez Burrisa (2004) odnosi się przede wszystkim do dużego systemu amerykańskiego -z długą listą prestiżowych wydziałów socjologii w całym kraju i ewentualną mobilnością kadry między nimi, i ma niewielkie zastosowanie w Europie kontynentalnej).…”

Section: Model Maksymalizacji Prestiżu Instytucji Szkolnictwa Wyższego a Czasopisma Elitarneunclassified

Ekonomia prestiżu akademickiego. Ilościowe ujęcie najlepszych czasopism na przykładzie dziedziny badań nad szkolnictwem wyższym

Kwiek

2019

nisw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Niniejsze studium dotyczy stratyfikacji (rozwarstwienia) w globalnym środowisku badaczy szkolnictwa wyższego oraz zmieniającej się geografii afiliacji autorów prac w sześciu najbardziej elitarnych czasopismach naukowych w tym obszarze. Model maksymalizacji prestiżu przez instytucje i naukowców oraz teoria pryncypała-agenta stanowią dwie ramy teoretyczne badania, które obejmuje 6 334 artykuły opublikowane w sześciu prestiżowych czasopismach w latach 1996–2018 w kontekście 21 442 artykułów opublikowanych w 41 podstawowych czasopismach w badanym obszarze. Porównano autorów zajmujących się szkolnictwem wyższym w pełnym i niepełnym wymiarze („etatowcy” i „niepełnoetatowcy”, full-timers i part-timers) i przeanalizowano rozkład ich przynależności do poszczególnych krajów z longitudinalnej (podłużnej) perspektywy ostatniego ćwierćwiecza. Wyniki wskazują, że około 3,3% naukowców publikujących zarówno w czasopismach elitarnych, jak i podstawowych, będących autorami co najmniej 5 artykułów w latach 1996–2018 stanowi trzon wydawniczy globalnej społeczności badawczej, podczas gdy 80% badaczy, którzy są autorami tylko jednego artykułu, stanowi jej peryferie. Pisma Higher Education i Studies in Higher Education wyłaniają się jako globalne czasopisma elitarne, z rosnącym udziałem prac autorów nieanglosaskich. Globalne trendy w obszarze badań nad szkolnictwem wyższym obejmują malejącą rolę naukowców amerykańskich oraz rosnącą rolę naukowców z Europy kontynentalnej i Azji Wschodniej.

show abstract

The unintended consequences of performance-based incentives on inequality in scientists’ research performance

Cited by 14 publications

References 39 publications

Universities’ Reporting on SDGs: Using THE Impact Rankings to Model and Measure Their Contribution to Sustainability

Universities’ Reporting on SDGs: Using THE Impact Rankings to Model and Measure Their Contribution to Sustainability

The prestige economy of higher education journals: a quantitative approach

Ekonomia prestiżu akademickiego. Ilościowe ujęcie najlepszych czasopism na przykładzie dziedziny badań nad szkolnictwem wyższym

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About