Academic metrics and the community engagement of tertiary education institutions: emerging issues in gaming, manipulation, and trust

  • Jo Ann OravecEmail author
Original Paper


Community engagement has played central roles in tertiary education, expanding the potentials for academic as well as civic enhancement. Such efforts are often undertaken in part with the use of metrics, as tertiary education institutions attempt to reach various community audiences with quantitatively-supported defenses of their missions, through research analyses and publications, and with their participation in formal institutional ranking systems. However, dramatic expansions of the use of metrics and the importance of publications in academics have fostered gaming and manipulation practices designed to enhance artificially both individual and institutional reputations, including predatory journal administration, coercive citation, forced joint authorship, paper mill and ghostwriting efforts, H-index manipulation, creation of bogus documents, development of fraudulent academic conferences, and many others, as well as falsified research itself. As they emerge in the press or in watchdog reports, such questionable practices can disturb delicate negotiations concerning the respective roles of communities and academic institutions as well as be perceived by some community members as violations of trust. The practices can be especially harmful when associated with celebrity or “star” academics who often are granted substantial institutional leeway. This study maps an assortment of these emerging practices from a community engagement perspective; it also analyzes recent discourse as to the impacts the normalizations of these problematic practices are having on community-academic interactions. It discusses strategies toward making production and use of academic metrics and related research output less easily manipulated and more worthy of trust both by academic participants and the community as a whole.


Community engagement Academic publications Academic reputation University rankings Scholarly metrics Institutional ethics 



  1. Aguillo, I. F., & Orduña-Malea, E. (2013). The ranking web and the “world-class” universities. In Building world-class universities (pp. 197–217). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.Google Scholar
  2. Altbach, P. (2015). Academic corruption: The continuing challenge. International Higher Education, 38, 5–6.Google Scholar
  3. Arend, R. J. (2017). Conflicts of interest as corrupting the checks and balances in the postpublication oversight of academic business journals. Journal of Management Inquiry.
  4. Bachmann, R., Gillespie, N., & Priem, R. (2015). Repairing trust in organizations and institutions: Toward a conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 36(9), 1123–1142.Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin, M. (2018). Scientific autonomy, public accountability, and the rise of “peer review” in the cold war United States. Isis, 109(3), 538–558.Google Scholar
  6. Bhagwan, R. (2017). Towards a conceptual understanding of community engagement in higher education in South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 35(1), 171–185.Google Scholar
  7. Biagioli, M. (2016). Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature News, 535(7611), 201.Google Scholar
  8. Bidner, C., & Francois, P. (2010). Cultivating trust: Norms, institutions and the implications of scale. The Economic Journal, 121(555), 1097–1129.Google Scholar
  9. Bishop, D. V. M. (2018). Fallibility in science: Responding to errors in the work of oneself and others. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 432–438.Google Scholar
  10. Bowen, H. (2018). Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bowman, J. D. (2014). Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(10), 176 1-6.Google Scholar
  12. Braun, T., Bergstrom, C. T., Frey, B. S., Osterloh, M., West, J. D., Pendlebury, D., & Rohn, J. (2010). How to improve the use of metrics. Nature, 465(17), 870–872.Google Scholar
  13. Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., & Rozenberg, & van Haeringen, K. (2018). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 1–17.
  14. Campanario, J. M. (1995). Commentary: On influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations. Science Communication, 16(3), 304–325.Google Scholar
  15. Campbell, R. (2016). “It's the way that you do it”: Developing an ethical framework for community psychology research and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58(3–4), 294–302.Google Scholar
  16. Caon, M. (2017). Gaming the impact factor: Where who cites what, whom and when. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 40(1), 273–276. Scholar
  17. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2008). Community engagement elective classification. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from Accessed 1 March 2019.
  18. Chan, M. (2018, September 28). Chinese military crackdown on forged data and plagiarism in science and technology research. South China Morning Post (Online), Hong Kong: South China Morning Post Publishers Limited.Google Scholar
  19. Chapman, D. W., & Lindner, S. (2016). Degrees of integrity: The threat of corruption in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 247–268.Google Scholar
  20. Darbyshire, P. (2018). Fake news. Fake journals. Fake conferences. What we can do. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(9–10), 1727–1729.Google Scholar
  21. Davison, R. M. (2018). The ethics of extended revisions. Information Systems Journal, 28(2), 263–265.Google Scholar
  22. Deering, D., & Sá, C. (2018). Do corporate management tools inevitably corrupt the soul of the university? Evidence from the implementation of responsibility center budgeting. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(2), 115–127.Google Scholar
  23. Denisova-Schmidt, E. (2018). Corruption, the lack of academic integrity and other ethical issues in higher education: What can be done within the Bologna process? In European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies (pp. 61–75). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  24. Devos, T., Spini, D., & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Conflicts among human values and trust in institutions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 481–494.Google Scholar
  25. Doyle, J., & Cuthill, M. (2015). Does ‘get visible or vanish’ herald the end of ‘publish or perish’? Higher Education Research and Development, 34(3), 671–674.Google Scholar
  26. Driscoll, A., & Lynton, E. A. (1999). Making outreach visible: A guide to documenting professional service and outreach. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  27. Driscoll, A., & Sandmann, L. R. (2016). From maverick to mainstream: The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 83–94.Google Scholar
  28. Eden, L., Dean, K. L., & Vaaler, P. M. (2018). Retraction: Mistake or misconduct? In The ethical professor (pp. 65–79). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61.Google Scholar
  30. Elliott, J. E. (2017). Prestige auditing and the market for academic esteem: A framework and an appeal. Prometheus, 35(1), 57–73.Google Scholar
  31. Fifolt, M. (2017). Diploma mills: How for-profit colleges stiffed students, taxpayers, and the American dream. College and University, 92(3), 75.Google Scholar
  32. Fighting fraud. (2018). Nature, 561(7723), 285–286.Google Scholar
  33. Fitzgerald, H. E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S. T., Furco, A., & Swanson, L. (2016). The centrality of engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 223–244.Google Scholar
  34. Fitzgerald, H. E., Van Egeren, L. A., Bargerstock, B. A., & Zientek, R. (2017). Community engagement scholarship, research universities, and the scholarship of integration. In Learning Through Community Engagement (pp. 31–51). Springer, Singapore.Google Scholar
  35. Fitzpatrick, G., Friedman, B., Höök, K., Olson, J. S., & Russell, D. M. (2018, April). Daring to change: Creating a slower more sustainable academic life. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. panel06). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  36. Garza, C., Stover, P. J., Ohlhorst, S. D., Field, M. S., Steinbrook, R., Rowe, S., Wotecki, C., & Campbell, E. (2019, Forthcoming). Best practices in nutrition science to earn and keep the public's trust. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
  37. Gasparyan, A. Y., Nurmashev, B., Voronov, A. A., Gerasimov, A. N., Koroleva, A. M., & Kitas, G. D. (2016). The pressure to publish more and the scope of predatory publishing activities. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 31(12), 1874–1878.Google Scholar
  38. Gavrila, S. G., & Ramirez, F. O. (2019). Reputation management revisited: US universities presenting themselves online. In Universities as Agencies (pp. 67–91). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.Google Scholar
  39. Gone, J. P. (2017). “It felt like violence”: Indigenous knowledge traditions and the postcolonial ethics of academic inquiry and community engagement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 60(3–4), 353–360.Google Scholar
  40. Hamblin, J. (2018, September 24). A credibility crisis in food science. The Atlantic. Retrieved from Accessed 1 March 2019.
  41. Han, X., & Appelbaum, R. P. (2018). China’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research environment: A snapshot. PLoS One, 13(4), e0195347.Google Scholar
  42. Harley, B., Faems, D., & Corbett, A. (2014). A few bad apples or the tip of an iceberg? Academic misconduct in publishing. Journal of Management Studies, 51(8), 1361–1363.Google Scholar
  43. Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud—Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(25), 2393–2395.Google Scholar
  44. Heffernan, T. A., & Heffernan, A. (2018). Language games: University responses to ranking metrics. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(1), 29–39.Google Scholar
  45. Heitman, E., & Litewka, S. (2011). International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees. Urologic Oncology, 29, 104–108.Google Scholar
  46. Heyneman, S. P. (2014). How corruption puts higher education at risk. International Higher Education, 75, 3–5.Google Scholar
  47. Heyneman, S. P. (2015). The corruption of ethics in higher education. International Higher Education, 62, 8–9.Google Scholar
  48. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–806.Google Scholar
  50. Ives, B., Alama, M., Mosora, L. C., Mosora, M., Grosu-Radulescu, L., Clinciu, A. I., & Dutu, A. (2017). Patterns and predictors of academic dishonesty in Romanian university students. Higher Education, 74(5), 815–831.Google Scholar
  51. Jennings, W. G. (2018). Citation trajectories of academic stars from the “hit parade”. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 29(2), 249–266.Google Scholar
  52. Jessop, B. (2017). Varieties of academic capitalism and entrepreneurial universities. Higher Education, 73(6), 853–870.Google Scholar
  53. Jones, L., & Wells, K. (2007). Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 297(4), 407–410.Google Scholar
  54. Kezar, A. J. (2004). Obtaining integrity? Reviewing and examining the charter between higher education and society. The Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 429–459.Google Scholar
  55. Kline, C., Asadian, W., Godolphin, W., Graham, S., Hewitt, C., & Towle, A. (2018). From “academic projectitis” to partnership: Community perspectives for authentic community engagement in health professional education. Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning, 4(1), 79–96.Google Scholar
  56. Kozinets, R. V. (2017). Flow my bits, the professor screened: Netnography, academic micro-celebrity, and personal branding. In Digital tools for academic branding and self-promotion (pp. 52–65). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  57. Kun, Á. (2018). Publish and who should perish: You or science? Publications, 6(2), 18–36. Scholar
  58. Lachapelle, P. R., & McCool, S. F. (2012). The role of trust in community wildland fire protection planning. Society & Natural Resources, 25(4), 321–335.Google Scholar
  59. Lewis, L. S. (2018). Scaling the ivory tower: Merit and its limits in academic careers. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Lin, S. (2013). Why serious academic fraud occurs in China. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 24–27.Google Scholar
  61. Liu, M. C. M. (2017). Conformity, resistance, and gaming: The impact of World University ranking on faculty scholarship at a Taiwanese university. PhD Dissertation: The University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  62. Macfarlane, B., Zhang, J., & Pun, A. (2014). Academic integrity: A review of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 339–358.Google Scholar
  63. Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2018). The data thugs. Science, 359(6377), 730–732. Scholar
  64. Mavisakalyan, A., & Meinecke, J. (2016). The labor market return to academic fraud. European Economic Review, 82, 212–230.Google Scholar
  65. Mavrogenis, A. F., Panagopoulos, G. N., Megaloikonomos, P. D., Panagopoulos, V. N., Mauffrey, C., Quaile, A., & Scarlat, M. M. (2018). Scientific misconduct (fraud) in medical writing. Orthopedics, 41(2), e176–e183.Google Scholar
  66. McKiernan, E. C. (2017). Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education. PLoS Biology, 15(10), e1002614.Google Scholar
  67. Metzger, W. P. (1961). Academic freedom in the age of the university (Vol. 12). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Michler, J. D., Masters, W. A., & Josephson, A. (2018). Beyond the IRB: Towards a typology of research ethics in applied economics (no. 2172–2018-8198), 1–18.Google Scholar
  69. Moran, J. (1998). Cultural studies and academic stardom. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 1(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
  70. Munafò, M. R., Hollands, G. J., & Marteau, T. M. (2018). Open science prevents mindless science. British Medical Journal, 363, k4309. Scholar
  71. Newton, P. (2018). How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education? Frontiers in Education, 3, 67. Accessed 1 March 2019.Google Scholar
  72. Nixon, E., Scullion, R., & Hearn, R. (2018). Her majesty the student: Marketised higher education and the narcissistic (dis) satisfactions of the student-consumer. Studies in Higher Education, 43(6), 927–943.Google Scholar
  73. Okada, E. (2018). Knowledge corruption and governance in academic knowledge-intensive organizations: The case of molecular mutations research. Journal of Public Affairs, 18(1), e1698.Google Scholar
  74. Oleksiyenko, A., & Tierney, W. G. (2018). Higher education and human vulnerability: Global failures of corporate design. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(3), 187–192.Google Scholar
  75. Oravec, J. A. (2004). The transparent knowledge worker: Weblogs and reputation mechanisms in KM systems. International Journal of Technology Management, 28(7–8), 767–775.Google Scholar
  76. Oravec, J. A. (2013). Gaming Google: Some ethical issues involving online reputation management. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 10, 61–81.Google Scholar
  77. Oravec, J. A. (2017). The manipulation of scholarly rating and measurement systems: Constructing excellence in an era of academic stardom. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(4), 423–436.Google Scholar
  78. Ponte, D., Mierzejewska, B. I., & Klein, S. (2017). The transformation of the academic publishing market: Multiple perspectives on innovation. Electronic Markets, 27(2), 97–100.Google Scholar
  79. Pooley, J. (2018). Metrics mania: The case against academia.Edu. hCommons. Retrieved from Accessed 1 March 2019.
  80. Pradhan, B., & Pradhan, A. (2017). Dealing with plagiarism in scholarly communication. International Journal of Library and Information Studies, 7(3), 67–73.Google Scholar
  81. Reeves, M. (2004). Academic integrity and its limits in Kyrgyzstan. International Higher Education, 37(Fall), 22–24.Google Scholar
  82. Schrecker, E. (2010). The lost soul of higher education: Corporatization, the assault on academic freedom, and the end of the American university. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  83. Shore, C. (2018). How corrupt are universities? Audit culture, fraud prevention, and the big four accountancy firms. Current Anthropology, 59(S18), S92–S104.Google Scholar
  84. Singer, B. D. (1989). The criterial crisis of the academic world. Sociological Inquiry, 59(2), 127–143.Google Scholar
  85. Singh, S., & Remenyi, D. (2016). Plagiarism and ghostwriting: The rise in academic misconduct. South African Journal of Science, 112(5–6), 1–7.Google Scholar
  86. Smith, R. (2018). The business of academic publishing: “A catastrophe”. The Lancet, 392(10154), 1186–1187.Google Scholar
  87. Smyth, J. (2017a). Cultivation of the ‘rock star’ academic researcher? In The Toxic University (pp. 99–123). Palgrave Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  88. Smyth, J. (2017b). The University as an instrument of ‘class’. In The Toxic University (pp. 125–147). Palgrave Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  89. Spence, C. (2018). ‘Judgement’ versus ‘metrics’ in higher education management. Higher Education, 1–15.Google Scholar
  90. Stöckelová, T., & Vostal, F. (2017). Academic stratospheres-cum-underworlds: When highs and lows of publication cultures meet. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 516–528.Google Scholar
  91. Strathern, M. (Ed.). (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics, and the academy. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  92. Täljedal, I. B. (2013). Publish and perish: A note on a collapsing academic authorship. In Transformations in Research, Higher Education and the Academic Market (pp. 145–153). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  93. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52(7), 895–922.Google Scholar
  94. Vinyard, M., & Colvin, J. B. (2018). How research becomes impact: Librarians helping faculty use scholarly metrics to select journals. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 25(2), 187–204.Google Scholar
  95. Wallenburg, I., & Bal, R. (2018). The gaming healthcare practitioner: How practices of datafication and gamification reconfigure care. Health Informatics Journal, 1460458218796608.Google Scholar
  96. Warren, A. M., Sulaiman, A., & Jaafar, N. I. (2014). Social media effects on fostering online civic engagement and building citizen trust and trust in institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 291–301.Google Scholar
  97. Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 73–106.Google Scholar
  98. Welch, M., & Plaxton-Moore, S. (2017). Faculty development for advancing community engagement in higher education: Current trends and future directions. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 21(2), 131–165.Google Scholar
  99. Wilsdon, J. (2016). The metric tide: Independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  100. Woelert, P., & Yates, L. (2015). Too little and too much trust: Performance measurement in Australian higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 56(2), 175–189.Google Scholar
  101. Yang, R. (2016). Toxic academic culture in East Asia. International Higher Education, 84, 15–16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Higher Education Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business and EconomicsUniversity of Wisconsin at Whitewater (Information Technology and Supply Chain Management)WhitewaterUSA
  2. 2.Robert F. and Jean E. Holtz Center for Science, Technology, & Society StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin at MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations