|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2012‒02‒01
three papers chosen by Jonas Holmström Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | John P. Conley (Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University); Mario J. Crucini (Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University); Robert A. Driskill (Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University); Ali Sina Onder (Department of Economics, Uppsala University) |
| Abstract: | We investigate how increases in publication delays have affected the life-cycle of publications of recent Ph.D. graduates in economics. We construct a panel dataset of 14,271 individuals who were awarded Ph.D.s between 1986 and 2000 in US and Canadian economics departments. For this population of scholars, we amass complete records of publications in peer reviewed journals listed in the JEL (a total of 368,672 observations). We find evidence of significantly diminished productivity in recent relative to earlier cohorts when productivity of an individual is measured by the number of AER equivalent publications. Diminished productivity is less evident when number of AER equivalent pages is used instead. Our findings are consistent with earlier empirical findings of increasing editorial delays, decreasing acceptance rates at journals, and a trend toward longer manuscripts. This decline in productivity is evident in both graduates of top thirty and non-top thirty ranked economics departments and may have important implications for what should constitute a tenurable record. We also find that the research rankings of the faculty do not line up with the research quality of their students in many cases. |
| Keywords: | Academia, Economists, Research Productivity, Performance Evaluation, Tenure Process, Graduate Programs, Department Rankings |
| JEL: | A11 A23 J24 J29 J44 |
| Date: | 2011–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:van:wpaper:1122&r=sog |
| By: | Dalen, H.P. van; Henkens, C.J.I.M. (Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research) |
| Abstract: | Abstract: How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, we show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called “publish-or-perish†culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge of the population facts. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline. |
| Keywords: | Incentives;productivity;science;publications;university. |
| JEL: | A12 J4 M52 |
| Date: | 2012 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dgr:kubcen:2012003&r=sog |
| By: | Dilger, Alexander; Müller, Harry |
| Abstract: | Bei der Evaluation von Forschungsleistungen hat das gängige Verfahren, Publikationen anhand der Zeitschriften zu bewerten, in denen sie erschienen sind, ernstzunehmende Schwächen, da es Buchveröffentlichungen unberücksichtigt lässt und vom Ansehen einer Zeitschrift auf die Qualität jedes einzelnen Artikels in ihr schließt. Als Alternative wird ein direkt auf den Zitationen der einzelnen Veröffentlichung basierendes Verfahren vorgeschlagen, bei dem der Impact jedes Forschers individuell gemessen werden kann. Als Grundlage dient die Datenbank Google Scholar, da sie insbesondere in Hinblick auf die deutschsprachige Literatur die beste Abdeckung verspricht. Allerdings hat sie qualitative Schwächen, die eine sorgfältige Nachkontrolle und -korrektur der Ergebnisse erfordern. Bei einer bibliometrischen Untersuchung der aktuellen Veröffentlichungen (2005-2009) sämtlicher Mitglieder des VHB (Stand 2007) zeigt sich, dass die Zitationen einer Pareto-Verteilung folgen, an deren Spitze wenige Forscher einen Großteil der gesamten Zitationen auf sich vereinen. Mit Blick auf die unterschiedlichen Kommissionen des VHB wird deutlich, dass sich die Publikations- und Zitationskulturen in den einzelnen Teilfächern z. T. deutlich voneinander unterscheiden. Dies ist bei der Interpretation des Gesamtrankings zu berücksichtigen. -- Regarding the evaluation of academic research performance, the currently predominant method of judging an individual paper according to the academic journal it was published in implies a few drawbacks: Monographs and edited volumes cannot be assessed, and estimating the quality of an individual article by looking at the journal it was published in is problematic. This article presents a different approach by measuring the individual impact of each researcher. As a data source we use Google Scholar because it offers the best coverage available in the field of German academic literature in business administration. However, Google Scholar implies qualitative shortcomings that deserve a careful inspection and revision. We analyse all recent publications (2005-2009) of all members of the German Academic Association for Business Research (VHB). Among the researchers, the citations are distributed highly unequal and follow Pareto's Law: Few scholars gather a large part of all citations. Between the different subfields of business administration there exist large differences regarding their publication and citation cultures. This should be considered carefully when interpreting the results of the ranking. |
| JEL: | I23 I20 A11 C81 M00 |
| Date: | 2011 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:umiodp:122011&r=sog |