Researchers’ risk-smoothing publication strategies: Is productivity the enemy of impact?
In the quest for balance between research productivity and impact, researchers in science and engineering are often encouraged to adopt a play-it-safe research and publication strategy that allows them to maintain high publication productivity and accelerate their career advancement but may reduce the likelihood of high impact or breakthrough research outcomes. In this paper, we analyze bibliometric data from Scopus and present results for the relationship between publication strategies, publishing productivity and citation-based publication impact for 227 full professors of chemistry and 148 professors of mechanical engineering at ten research-intensive universities in the United States. The results indicate some evidence for the “productivity as the enemy of impact” hypothesis in chemistry, where publishing at the higher margin of productivity leads to a stagnant or declining publication impact. Findings differ for mechanical engineering, where higher publishing productivity consistently leads to higher publication impact. We attribute the differences in findings between the disciplines to a higher propensity for productivity-focused publication strategies in chemistry than in mechanical engineering.
KeywordsRisk aversion Publication strategy Publication productivity Research strategy Citation impact
Mathematics Subject Classification62P25
JEL ClassificationI23 J24 O31
We gratefully acknowledge the work of Craig Boardman who assisted with the conceptualization of the study and two anonymous reviewers for invaluable suggestions for improving this work.
- Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). Multiple publication on a single research study: Does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1100–1107.Google Scholar
- Bozeman, B., & Youtie, J. (2017). The strength in numbers: The new science of team science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Budd, J. M., & Stewart, K. N. (2015). Is there such a thing as “Least Publishable Unit”? An empirical investigation. LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 25(2), 78.Google Scholar
- Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2015). About carnegie classification. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/. Accessed February 19 2018.
- Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Haslam, N., & Laham, S. M. (2010). Quality, quantity, and impact in academic publication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 216–220.Google Scholar
- Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 81(1), 114–132.Google Scholar
- Lovakov, A., & Pislyakov, V. (2017). Authors’ publication strategies and citation distributions in journals. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on scientometrics & informetrics (pp. 1489–1495). International Society for Scientometrics and Infometrics.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2005). Bridges to independence: Fostering the independence of new investigators in biomedical research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Rawat, S., & Meena, S. (2014). Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 19(2), 87–89.Google Scholar
- Resnik, D. B. (2006). The price of truth: How money affects the norms of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Richards, R. J., & Daston, L. (Eds.). (2016). Kuhn’s’ structure of scientific revolutions’ at fifty: Reflections on a science classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar