Disciplining the feminine

Scholars and pub‐junkies: Perspectives on academic publishing

“…Delayed, insofar as three years have elapsed since we questioned "bean counting" as an appropriate methodology for profiling prolific authors. In any event, Hickson attempts to refute our position, even in the face of others' thumping him for failing to recognize the rhetorical implications of publishing single-source data regarding prolific authors (Blaire, Brown, & Baxter, 1994). Nevertheless, robust debate over professional issues stimulates thinking about academic commonplaces.…”

Peer review as the enforcement of disciplinary orthodoxy

“…Despite the hope that their "essay will evoke additional discussion" (p. 403) of the ideological underpinnings of peer review and of standards for disciplinary advancement, Blair, Brown, and Baxter's (1994) effort was met with silence in scholarly journals. With the burgeoning of electronic communication, however, discussions that have been silenced or muted in scholarlyjournals emerge in other forms.…”

An analysis of book versus article productivity based on top researchers careers

“…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).…”