Recognition and reward in the academy: Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history

Aslib Journal of Information Management

Volumn 69, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 607-623

  Hammarfelt, Björn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BORÅS   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Academic careers; Content analysis; Peer review; Research evaluation; Research quality; Reward system of science

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; PUBLISHING;

ACADEMIC CAREERS; CONTENT ANALYSIS; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH EVALUATION; RESEARCH QUALITY; REWARD SYSTEMS;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 85032343275     PISSN: 20503806     EISSN: 20503814     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0006     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Abbott, A. (2005), “The idea of outcome in US sociology”, in Steinmetz, G. (Ed.), The Politics of Methods in the Human Sciences: Positivism and Its Epistemological Others, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 393-426.
2. Appadurai, A. (2013), The Future as a Cultural Fact: Essays on the Global Condition, Verso, London.
3. Benedictus, R., Miedema, F. and Ferguson, M.W. (2016), “Fewer numbers, better science”, Nature, Vol. 538 No. 7626, pp. 453-455.
4. Biagioli, M. (1998), “The instability of authorship: credit and responsibility in contemporary biomedicine”, The FASEB Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
5. Brommesson, D., Erlingsson, G., Karlsson Schaffer, J., Ödalen, J. and Fogelgren, M. (2016), “Att möta den högre utbildningens utmaningar”, IFAU, Uppsala.
6. Clark, W. (2008), Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
7. Felt, U. (2017), “Under the shadow of time: where indicators and academic values meet”, Special Issue: Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, Vol. 3, pp. 53-63.
8. Fourcade, M., Ollion, E. and Algan, Y. (2015), “The superiority of economics”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 89-113.
9. Gläser, J. and Laudel, G. (2015), “The three careers of an academic”, discussion paper, Zentrum Technic und Gesellschaft, Technische Universitet Berlin.
10. Hammarfelt, B. and de Rijcke, S. (2015), “Accountability in context: effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 63-77.
11. Hammarfelt, B. and Rushforth, A.D. (in press), “Indicators as judgment devices: an empirical study of citizen bibliometrics in research evaluation”, Research Evaluation, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvx018.
12. Hemlin, S. and Montgomery, H. (1993), “Peer judgements of scientific quality: a cross-disciplinary document analysis of professorship candidates”, Science & Technology Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 19-27.
13. Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, S.E. (2005), “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 1277-1288.
14. Jezierski, W. (2016), “Monografins elände: om svenska historikers avhandlingsformer”, Historisk tidskrift, Vol. 2016 No. 136, pp. 232-242.
15. Josephson, P. (2014), “The publication mill: the beginnings of publication history as an academic merit in German universities, 1750-1810”, in Josephson, P., Karlsohn, T. and Östling, J. (Eds), The Humboldtian Tradition: Origins and Legacies, Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden, pp. 23-43.
16. Karpik, L. (2010), Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
17. Lamont, M. (2009), How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
18. Langfeldt, L. (2001), “The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 820-841.
19. Maeße, J. (2017), “The elitism dispositif: hierarchization, discourses of excellence and organizational change in European economics”, Higher Education, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 909-927.
20. Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L. and Jerončić, A. (2011), “A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines”, Plos One, Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 1-17.
21. Mayring, P. (2000), “Qualitative content analysis”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 1 No. 2.
22. Musselin, C. (2009), The Market for Academics, Routledge, London.
23. Nilsson, R. (2009), God vetenskap. Hur forskares vetenskapsuppfattningar uttryckta i sakkunnigutlåtanden förändras i tre skilda discipliner, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Gothenburg.
24. Roumbanis, L. (2016), “Academic judgments under uncertainty: a study of collective anchoring effects in Swedish research council panel groups”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 95-116.
25. Rushforth, A. and de Rijcke, S. (2015), “Accounting for impact? The journal impact factor and the making of biomedical research in the Netherlands”, Minerva, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 117-139.
26. Salö, L. (2016), Languages and Linguistic Exchanges in Swedish Academia: Practices, Processes, and Globalizing Markets, Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism, Stockholm University, Stockholm.
27. Steinpreis, R.E., Anders, K.A. and Ritzke, D. (1999), “The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: a national empirical study”, Sex Roles, Vol. 41 Nos 7-8, pp. 509-528.
28. Tourish, D. and Willmott, H. (2015), “In defiance of folly: journal rankings, mindless measures and the ABS guide”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 37-46.
29. Van Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I. and van den Besselaar, P. (2014), “The selection of talent as a group process: a literature review on the social dynamics of decision making in grant panels”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 298-311.
30. Van Dalen, H.P. and Henkens, K. (2012), “Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: a worldwide survey”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 1282-1293.
31. Whitley, R. (2000), The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
32. Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A. and Franssen, T. (2015), “The metric tide”, literature review, Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management, HEFCE, London.
33. Zuccala, A. and van Leeuwen, T. (2011), “Book reviews in humanities research evaluations”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 1979-1991.