1996
DOI: 10.1080/10417949609373021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A response to Erickson, Fleuriet, and Hosman's “prolific publishing: Professional and administrative concerns”

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1999
1999
1999
1999

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 2 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Scholars within the field often disagree about both quantitative and qualitative evaluations of research productivity. Hickson, Stacks,and Amsbary (1989,1992,1993 conducted studies on individual faculty productivity of journal articles and sparked a rash of criticism (Blair, Brown, & Baxter, 1994;Erickson, Fleuriet, & Houseman, 1993 and counter-arguments (Hickson, 1996) about the techniques employed. Still, research productivity remains the most important academic issue since it is often the only one used by outsiders to assess academic departments (Gillespie, 1992).…”
Section: Page 214 -Communication Research Reports/summer 1999mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Scholars within the field often disagree about both quantitative and qualitative evaluations of research productivity. Hickson, Stacks,and Amsbary (1989,1992,1993 conducted studies on individual faculty productivity of journal articles and sparked a rash of criticism (Blair, Brown, & Baxter, 1994;Erickson, Fleuriet, & Houseman, 1993 and counter-arguments (Hickson, 1996) about the techniques employed. Still, research productivity remains the most important academic issue since it is often the only one used by outsiders to assess academic departments (Gillespie, 1992).…”
Section: Page 214 -Communication Research Reports/summer 1999mentioning
confidence: 98%