Scientometrics

, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 865–883 | Cite as

Cross-country differences in publishing productivity of academics in research universities

Article

Abstract

The main bibliometric databases indicate large differences in country-level scientific publishing productivity, with high growth in many East Asian countries. However, it is difficult to translate country-level publishing productivity to individual-level productivity due to cross-country differences in the size and composition of the research workforce, as well as limited coverage of publications in the social sciences and humanities. Alternative data sources, such as individual-level self-reported publication data, may capture a wider range of publication channels but potentially include non-peer reviewed output and research re-published in different languages. Using individual-level academic survey data across 11 countries, this study finds large differences across countries in individual-level publishing productivity. However, when fractionalised for English-language and peer-reviewed publications, cross-country differences are relatively smaller. This suggests that publishing productivity in certain countries is inflated by a tendency to publish in non-peer reviewed outlets. Academics in large, non-English speaking countries also potentially benefit from a wider range of domestic publication channels. Demographic, motivational and institutional characteristics associated with high individual-level publishing productivity account for part of the publishing productivity differences within and between counties in English-language and peer-reviewed publishing productivity, but not in total publishing productivity where such workforce characteristics only account for within-country differences.

Keywords

Publication productivity Research Publishing English-language publishing Double-publishing Peer-review 

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & Cicero, T. (2012). What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics, 93(3), 1005–1017. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0714-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altbach, P. G. (Ed.). (1996). The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Bentley, P. J. (2012). Gender differences and factors affecting publication productivity among Australian university academics. Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 85–103. doi: 10.1177/1440783311411958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentley, P. J., & Kyvik, S. (2011). Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 48–63. doi: 10.1177/0963662510384461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentley, P. J., & Kyvik, S. (2012). Academic work from a comparative perspective: a survey of faculty working time across 13 countries. Higher Education, 63(4), 529–547. doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9457-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentley, P. J., & Kyvik, S. (2013). Individual differences in faculty research time allocations across 13 countries. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 329–348. doi: 10.1007/s11162-012-9273-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2005). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine, 80(3), 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, M., & Centra, J. (1985). Influences on the career accomplishments of Ph. D’.s. Research in Higher Education, 23(3), 256–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Creamer, E. (1998). Assessing faculty publication productivity: Issues of equity (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 26). Washington D.C.: ASHE-ERIC/George Washington University.Google Scholar
  11. Cummings, W. K., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2012). Comparing the research productivity of US academics scholars in the changing American academy. In (Vol. 4, pp. 51–62, The changing academy: The changing academic profession in international comparative perspective), Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 607–631. doi: 10.1023/a:1018705823763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Enders, J., & Teichler, U. (1997). A victim of their own success? Employment and working conditions of academic staff in comparative perspective. Higher Education, 34(3), 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox, M. F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of education, 65(4), 293–305.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, M. F., & Mohapatra, S. (2007). Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 542–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gingras, Y., Lariviere, V., Macaluso, B., & Robitaille, J.-P. (2008). The effects of aging on researchers’ publication and citation patterns. PLoS ONE, 3(12), e4048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harzing, A.-W. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1057–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katz, J., & Martin, B. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kyvik, S. (1991). Productivity in academia: Scientific publishing at Norwegian Universities. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980–2000. Scientometrics, 58(1), 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kyvik, S. (2009). Allocating time resources for research between academic staff: The case of norwegian university colleges. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(3), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kyvik, S., & Larsen, I. (1997). The exchange of knowledge: A small country in the international research community. Science Communication, 18(3), 238–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kyvik, S., & Olsen, T. (2008). Does the aging of tenured academic staff affect the research performance of universities? Scientometrics, 76(3), 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(1), 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larsen, P. O., Maye, I., & von Ins, M. (2008). Scientific output and impact: Relative positions of China, Europe, India, Japan and the USA. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2(2), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2009). Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics, 78(1), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Long, J. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71(1), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603–641.Google Scholar
  34. Mishra, V., & Smyth, R. (2012). Are more senior academics really more research productive than junior academics? Evidence from Australian law schools. Scientometrics, 96(2), 411–425.Google Scholar
  35. Neate, P. (2012). Publishing ethics and intellectual property rights. In A. Youdeowei, P. Stapleton, & R. Obubo (Eds.), Scientific writing for agricultural research scientists: A training resource manual (pp. 161–168). Wageningen, The Netherlands: CTA.Google Scholar
  36. Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28(2), 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. RIHE (Ed.). (2008). The changing academic profession in international comparative and quantitative perspectives. (Vol. 12, RIHE International Seminar Reports). Hiroshima: Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University.Google Scholar
  38. Rosser, V. J., & Tabata, L. N. (2010). an examination of faculty work: Conceptual and theoretical frameworks in the literature. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 449–475). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rostan, M., Finkelstein, M., & Huang, F. (2014). Concepts and Methods. In The internationalization of the academy: Changes, realities and prospects (pp. 23–36, The changing academy: The changing academic profession in international comparative perspective 10). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Sax, L., Hagedorn, L., Arredondo, M., & DiCrisi, F. (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 423–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schuckit, M. A. (1997). Editor’s corner: Double publishing: A dilemma of language. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 58(3), 229–230.Google Scholar
  42. Sheehan, B., & Welch, A. (1996). The Australian academic profession. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The international academic profession: Portraits from fourteen countries (pp. 51–94). Carnegie Foundation: Princeton.Google Scholar
  43. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place, and time. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis. Higher Education, 39(2), 201–222.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. Verleysen, F., & Engels, T. E. (2014). Internationalization of peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed book publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Scientometrics, 1–14, doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1267-x.
  46. Ward, K., & Grant, L. (1996). Gender and academic publishing. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 11, pp. 172–222). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  47. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: new evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zuckerman, H. (2001). The careers of men and women scientists: gender differences in career attainment in studies. In M. Wyer (Ed.), Women, science and technology: A reader in feminist science (pp. 69–78). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and ManagementThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations