How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists

Hendrik P Van Dalen

doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03786-x

Abstract

The publish-or-perish principle has become a fact of academic life in gaining a position or being promoted. Evidence is mounting that benefits of this pressure is being countered by the downsides, like forms of goal displacement by scientists or unethical practices. In this paper we evaluate whether perceived work pressure (publishing, acquisition funds, teaching, administration) is associated with different attitudes towards science and the workplace among economists working at Dutch universities. Publication pressure is high and is related to faculty position and university ranking position. Based on a latent class analysis we can detect a clear divide among economists. Around two third of the economists perceives that this pressure has upsides as well as serious downsides and one third only perceives upsides and no downsides. Full professors see more than other faculty members the positive sides of the publish-or-perish principle and virtually no downsides. These different perceptions are also reflected in their appreciation of the academic work environment.

Highlights

Scientometrics (2021) 126:1675–1694“...when you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind”. (Kelvin as cited in Merton, Sills, and Stigler (1984)).Kelvin’s dictum has been the guiding principle for many generations of scientists, not in the least for economists.1 Measurement is science
To assess the impact of the publish-or-perish principle on the perceived work pressure of economists and their view on how this principle affects their scientific practice, data were collected by means of a survey, distributed among faculty members of all economic departments at Dutch universities
The economist and Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson (1962) once summarized what intrinsically motivates scientists: “In the long run, the economic scholar only works for the only coin worth having – our own applause.”

Summary

Introduction

“...when you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind”. (Kelvin as cited in Merton, Sills, and Stigler (1984)). The publish-or-perish culture resounds in the work by Niles et al (2020) who show how young scholars at academic institutions in the US and Canada value the impact factor of journals, the number of publications and other metrics at a far higher rate than older and tenured scholars. For those scholars who are involved in review processes concerning promotion and tenure these factors are virtually the only ones that count but—as Niles et al. This paper tries to enrich this debate by taking a closer look at how academic economists of different ranks evaluate the work pressure in the modern-day university

Method and data

Improves the quality of research as a result of peer review

Because of the publication pressure I have thought about leaving academia

Conclusions and discussion

Findings

Compliance with ethical standards