Unraveling the Academic Productivity of Economists: The Opportunity Costs of Teaching and Service

Taylor, Susan Washburn; Fender, Blakely Fox; Burke, Kimberly Gladden

doi:10.2307/20111856

Cited by 76 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…• editorial discouragement of the slicing of results into least publishable units and encouragement of well-rounded papers [41]; • making it mandatory for all scientists to dedicate some time to teaching and public presentations each year [42,43]; • limiting the number of publications that can be included in support of grant applications (as done e.g. by the current European Research Council starting grant scheme); • decreasing the precarious nature of science for young researchers (scientists on short-term contracts might tend to publish more papers than those on long-term contracts, so as to increase their chances of getting a new position).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Growth in Biological Sub-Fields: Patterns, Predictability and Sustainability

Pautasso

2012

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Biologists are producing ever-increasing quantities of papers. The question arises of whether current rates of increase in scientific outputs are sustainable in the long term. I studied this issue using publication data from the Web of Science (1991Science ( -2010 for 18 biological sub-fields. In the majority of cases, an exponential regression explains more variation than a linear one in the number of papers published each year as a function of publication year. Exponential growth in publication numbers is clearly not sustainable. About 75% of the variation in publication growth among biological sub-fields over the two studied decades can be predicted by publication data from the first six years. Currently trendy fields such as structural biology, neuroscience and biomaterials cannot be expected to carry on growing at the current pace, because in a few decades they would produce more papers than the whole of biology combined. Synthetic and systems biology are problematic from the point of view of knowledge dissemination, because in these fields more than 80% of existing papers have been published over the last five years. The evidence presented here casts a shadow on how sustainable the recent increase in scientific publications can be in the long term.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Growth in Biological Sub-Fields: Patterns, Predictability and Sustainability

Pautasso

2012

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This econometric methodology has also been used recently in a similar context by Taylor et al (2006).…”

Section: Econometric Methodology: Models For Data Counts and Censoredmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 See, for example, Fusfeld (1956). explaining differences in scientific production. However, Johnes (1988), Spangenberg et al (1990aSpangenberg et al ( , 1990b, Faria (2001) and Taylor et al (2006) also highlight the negative influence of participation in consultancy studies on scientific production (private funding).…”

Section: Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of the determinants in Economics and Business publications by Spanish universities between 1994 and 2004

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary:The objective of this study consists, firstly, of quantifying differences between Spanish universities' output (in terms of publications and citations), and secondly, analysing its determinants. The results obtained show that there are factors which have a positive influence on these indicators, such as having a third-cycle programme, with public financing obtained in competitive selection procedures, having a large number of full-time researchers or involvement in collaborations with international institutions. However, other factors which appear to have the opposite effect were also noted. These include a higher number of students per lecturer or a lower proportion of lecturers with recognised six-year periods.

show abstract

“…Factors surrounding family formation and childrearing have been one of the major causes of female underrepresentation in academia evidenced by the literature (Sax et al 2002;Stack 2004;Fox 2005;Ginther and Kahn 2006;Prozesky 2008;Hunter and Leahey 2010). Another large body of literature has focused on structural factors such as the greater presence of women in less research-oriented institutions (Allison and Long 1990;Xie and Shauman 1998), the higher teaching and service load among females (Taylor et al 2006;Snell et al 2009;DesRoches et al 2010), their lower degree of specialization (Leahey 2006) and of academic status and rank (Leta and Lewison 2003;Tower et al 2007;Puuska 2010;Pashkova et al 2013), their difficulties in accessing funding (Xie and Shauman 1998), the low percentage of women on selection committees (European Commission 2009;Zinovyeva and Bagues 2011), or the academic assessment systems that have traditionally ignored factors that especially affect women (LERU 2012). From a psychological perspective, gender differences have been explained by women's lower levels of career orientation, ambition, and aggressiveness (Sonnert 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of this paper is to study the development and growth of scientific literature on women in science and higher education. A total of 1415 articles and reviews published between 1991 and 2012 were extracted from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. Standard bibliometric indicators and laws (e.g. Price's, Lotka's, and Bradford's laws) were applied to these data. In addition, the Gender Inequality Index (GII) was obtained for each country in order to rank them. The results suggest an upward trend not only in the number of papers but also in the number of authors per paper. However, this increase in the number of authors was not accompanied by greater international collaboration. The interest in gender differences in science extends too many authors (n = 3064), countries (n = 67), and research areas (n = 86). Data showed a high dispersion of the literature and a small set of core journals focused on the topic. Regarding the research areas, the area with the highest frequency of papers was Education and Educational Research. Finally, our results showed that countries with higher levels of inequality (higher GII values) tend to present higher relative values of scientific productivity in the field.

show abstract

Unraveling the Academic Productivity of Economists: The Opportunity Costs of Teaching and Service

Cited by 76 publications

References 0 publications

Publication Growth in Biological Sub-Fields: Patterns, Predictability and Sustainability

Publication Growth in Biological Sub-Fields: Patterns, Predictability and Sustainability

An analysis of the determinants in Economics and Business publications by Spanish universities between 1994 and 2004

Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About