Academia’s never-ending selection for productivity

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Aitkenhead, D. (2013). Peter Higgs: I wouldn’t be productive enough for today’s academic system. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system.

  2. Brischoux, F., & Cook, T. R. (2009). Juniors seek an end to the impact factor race. BioScience, 59, 638–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carpenter, C. R., Cone, D. C., & Sarli, C. C. (2014). Using publication metrics to highlight academic productivity and research impact. Academic Emergency Medicine, 21, 1160–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cherubini, P. (2008). Impact factor fever. Science, 322, 191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. DORA. (2013). http://www.ascb.org/dora-old/files/SFDeclarationFINAL.pdf.

  6. Fischer, J., Ritchie, E. G., & Hanspach, J. (2012a). Academia’s obsession with quantity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 473–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fischer, J., Ritchie, E. G., Hanspach, J., et al. (2012b). An academia beyond quantity: A reply to Loyola et al. and Halme et al. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 587–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jackson, D., Walter, G., Daly, J., & Cleary, M. (2013). Multiple outputs from single studies: Acceptable division of findings vs. ‘salami’ slicing. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jacobs, H. (2013). Dear DORA. EMBO Reports, 14, 947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jacobs, H. (2014). Something rotten. EMBO Reports, 15, 817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaushal, S. S., & Jeschke, J. M. (2014). Collegiality versus competition: How metrics shape scientific communities. BioScience, 63, 155–156.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lawrence, P. A. (2007). The mismeasurment of science. Current Biology, 17, R583–R585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Loyola, R. D., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., & Bini, L. M. (2012). Obsession with quantity: A view from the south. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McDade, L. A., Maddison, D. R., Guralnick, R., Piwowar, H. A., Jameson, M. L., Helgen, K. M., et al. (2011). Biology needs a modern assessment system for professional productivity. BioScience, 61, 619–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nabout, J. C., Parreira, M. R., Teresa, F. B., Carneiro, F. M., da Cunha, H. F., de Souza Ondei, L., et al. (2015). Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): The trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers. Scientometrics, 102, 357–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sanchis-Gomar, F. (2014). How does the journal impact factor affect the CV of PhD students? EMBO Reports, 15, 207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the CNRS and Morgan Reynaud for providing the list of young recruits, and Lucy Runacre for improving the English.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to François Brischoux.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brischoux, F., Angelier, F. Academia’s never-ending selection for productivity. Scientometrics 103, 333–336 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1534-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Impact Factor
  • Career Duration
  • Young Researcher
  • Research Position
  • Salami