Search results

Although many in academe have speculated about the effects of pressure to publish on the management discipline – often referred to as “publish or perish” – prevailing knowledge has been based on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. The aim of the present paper is to shed light on the perceptions of management faculty regarding the pressure to publish imperative.

The authors surveyed faculty in 104 management departments of AACSB accredited, research‐oriented US business schools to explore the prevalence, sources, and effects of pressure to publish.

Results indicate that pressure to publish affects both tenured and tenure‐track management faculty, although the latter, as a group, feel significantly more pressure than those who are tenured. The primary source of this pressure is faculty themselves who are motivated by the prospects of enhancing their professional reputation, leaving a permanent mark on their profession, and increasing their salary and job mobility. The effects of pressure to publish include heightened stress levels; the marginalization of teaching; and research that may lack relevance, creativity, and innovation.

The sample was intentionally restricted to faculty from management departments affiliated with research‐oriented US business schools and does not include faculty from departments that are less research‐oriented and, therefore, would be expected to put less pressure on their faculty to publish.

Although the effects of pressure to publish are not necessarily always negative, the paper offers some fundamental suggestions to management (and other) faculty who wish to mitigate the deleterious effects of pressure to publish.

Although the findings may not be surprising to more seasoned faculty, to the authors' knowledge this is the first time they have been documented in the published literature. As such, they advance discussions of “publish or perish” beyond mere conjecture and “shared myths” allowing management faculty to more rationally debate its consequences and their implications for academic life.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between positive incentives (perceived organisational support) and negative incentives (publish or perish), on both academic publication productivity and marketing academics’ quality of life. While publish-or-perish pressure is a common technique to improve academics’ performance, its punishment orientation may be poorly suited to the uncertain, creative work that research entails and be harmful to academics’ life satisfaction and other well-being variables. In particular, it may interfere with family commitments, and harm the careers of academic women. While perceived organisational support may be effective in encouraging research outputs and be positive for well-being, it may be insufficient as a motivator in the increasingly competitive and pressured world of academia. These issues are important for individual academics, for schools wishing to attract good staff, and the wider marketing discipline wanting to ensure high productivity and quality of life amongst its members.

A conceptual model was developed and empirically tested using self-report survey data from 1,005 academics across five continents. AMOS structural equation modelling was used to analyse the data.

The findings indicate that the most important determinants of publishing success and improved well-being of academics is organisational support rather than a “publish-or-perish” culture.

The use of a self-report survey may have an impact (and potential bias) on the perceived importance and career effect of a “publish-or-perish” culture. However, current levels of the publish-or-perish culture appear to have become harmful, even for top academic publishers. Additional longitudinal data collection is proposed.

The challenge to develop tertiary systems that support and facilitate world-leading research environments may reside more in organisational support, both perceived and real, rather than a continuation (or adoption) of a publish-or-perish environment. There are personal costs, in the form of health concerns and work–family conflict, associated with academic success, more so for women than men.

This study is the first to empirically demonstrate the influence and importance of “publish-or-perish” and“perceived organisational support” management approaches on marketing academic publishing performance and academic well-being.

The purpose of this paper is to explore whether and how Ukrainian scholars recognize and react to a situation of an absence of two major institutional logics of academic writing and publishing, namely the logics of science advancement and personal career promotion and the dominance of the logic of coercive pressures to publish regardless of quality and resonance and with no material and reputational rewards. Two fundamental and essential logics that drive research activity at any university in western societies seem to be almost absent in Ukrainian context, where symbolic publishing for accountability only is taken-for-granted.

The study adopts qualitative interpretative research methodology. The scholars from seven universities were interviewed, including 16 senior scholars and 15 PhD students.

The study shows the dominance of a single logic of accountability which is persisted due to coercive pressures exerted on scholars. Despite the absence of instrumental value behind publishing requirements in Ukrainian higher education system, most academics do not question this policy and largely take it for granted as the only possible system.

Research conducted in this study contributes to institutional logics and institutional complexity literature by highlighting a unique situation of institutional complexity when logic that offers neither economic nor social benefits dominates the field. It is shown how actors recognize, interpret and respond to this situation, identifying three types of responses that range from blind adherence to taken-for-granted institutional definitions to strategic balance between coercive pressures and desired logics.

The purpose of this paper is to examine researchers’ motivations to publish by comparing different career stages (PhD students; temporarily employed postdocs/new professors; scholars with permanent employment) with regard to epistemic, pragmatic, and personal motives.

This qualitative analysis is mainly based on semi-structured narrative interviews with 91 researchers in the humanities, social, and natural sciences, based at six renowned (anonymous) universities in Germany, the UK, and the USA. These narratives contain answers to the direct question “why do you publish?” as well as remarks on motivations to publish in relation to other questions and themes. The interdisciplinary interpretation is based on both sociological science studies and philosophy of science in practice.

At each career stage, epistemic, pragmatic, and personal motivations to publish are weighed differently. Confirming earlier studies, the authors find that PhD students and postdoctoral researchers in temporary positions mainly feel pressured to publish for career-related reasons. However, across status groups, researchers also want to publish in order to support collective knowledge generation.

The sample of interviewees may be biased toward those interested in reflecting on their day-to-day work.

Continuous and collective reflection is imperative for preventing uncritical internalization of pragmatic reasons to publish. Creating occasions for reflection is a task not only of researchers themselves, but also of administrators, funders, and other stakeholders.

Most studies have illuminated how researchers publish while adapting to or growing into the contemporary publish-or-perish culture. This paper addresses the rarely asked question why researchers publish at all.

The study aims to assess the journal packing density (JPD) of the research journals published across different subject discipline at the global level. The concept of JPD is aimed to compute the average number of research articles published per volume or per issue of a research journal in any given subject discipline. The study also discusses about the leading research journals publishing countries and continents across the world and their average JPD. An attempt has also been made to identify the leading research counties having maximum JPD in any given subject discipline.

The study covers 27 major research subject disciplines widely popular all across the globe. To undertake the present study, data were retrieved from SCImago Journal and Country Ranking.

In all, 36,081 research journals were indexed by Scopus across 27 major subject disciplines at the global level till 2015. During the period 2013-2015, 11,023,122 research articles were published in 36,081 research journals across 27 major subject disciplines at the global level at an average of 101.84 research articles per journal per volume. This means the average JPD of the research journals at the global level is 101.84 research articles per journal per volume. Chemistry, physics and astronomy and multidisciplinary journals are the three leading subject disciplines to have the maximum JPD, namely, 266.66, 253.92 and 242.53 research articles per journal per volume. JPD of research journals published in the sciences is higher than the JPD of research journals published in the social sciences and humanities. Business, management and accounting, social sciences and arts and humanities are three subject disciplines having lowest JPD, namely, 44.26, 35.68 and 32.66 research articles per journal per volume, respectively. China, Ireland and The Netherlands recorded the highest average JPD in the research journals published from these counties, namely, 213.39, 178.44 and 135.31 research articles per journal per volume, respectively.

Countries from where a lesser number of research journals are indexed by the popular indexes, such as Scopus, Web of Science, etc., face greater pressure of publishing. To ooze out this pressure, there is need to index more and more research journals from these countries and that can be done only by improving and maintaining the research standard over a period.

The study is original and the first of its kind undertaken at the global level across all the major subject disciplines.

While there has been extensive commentary and research on issues relating to student academic integrity, the behavior (or misbehavior) of faculty has been less explored. Research misconduct and misbehavior is shaped by environmental forces acting at four distinct levels: individual, organizational, educational system, and social (Anderson, 2011; see also Bertram Gallant & Kalichman, 2011). This chapter explores the current climate in higher education whereby academics are under increasing pressure to publish, and how this pressure impacts standards of ethical conduct in academic publishing in the online environment. The chapter argues that to maintain integrity in online publishing environments, there needs to be a multi-stakeholder approach that encompasses each of the environmental levels, from educational policy makers, to senior managers, to teaching academics and advisors, to editors and finally to individual researchers/authors. In addition to recognizing the value of including standard protocols in online journals' instructions to authors, this chapter makes the case for a politicized response to the seemingly limitless pressure on academics to prove their worth by measuring their intellectual outputs.

There is no particularly efficient way to measure research output, but effectual assessment of research output is necessary to motivate and encourage researchers to enhance their research performance and disseminate knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the exacerbating pressure on Indian academics to deliver incessantly in terms of research output and identify an agreeable way to increase research output. The metric explores trends in management publications by Indian academics and presents an overview of collaborative practices by Indian management researchers that could shine a light on the trends of collaborative publishing future.

The study focuses on publications in the area of Business and Management. Scopus was used with advanced filters to draw relevant research papers. Data were then sorted and filtered on the basis of quality determined through Australian Business Deans Council rankings and diverse bibliometric information to understand the pattern of research output of Indian academics.

The research found that the rate of collaboration with researchers from the home country is low for top rated publications. Majority of publications were listed in Scopus indexed journals, whereas a handful featured in A and A* journals. A and A* journals were predominantly co-authored with academics from universities outside the country. Tradeoff was achieved by majority of authors by getting published in B, followed by C category journals to achieve research outputs.

The study is limited to publications in the area of Business and Management and may be extended to other disciplines such as economics, engineering, law, medical sciences, etc., to understand publishing trends at universities in the country. The study can also be conducted in understanding a similar dilemma with academics at other countries that are evolving in research culture.

The study would help management researchers to dig deep into the root cause and understand why and how collaborations within and outside the country impact the quality of publications. The results would further encourage ranking agencies to award suitable grades to colleges that promote collaboration within the country as well as international collaboration. The study also conducts a benchmarking exercise of the institutions in the country that would be useful for researchers, journals and colleges.

While earlier studies have highlighted the importance of foreign collaborations in academic publishing, there are a handful of studies that have focused on the role of collaboration within the home country. The practice of Indian authors collaborating with Indian counterparts at other universities would help understand the expertise of researchers at different universities and encourage the collaboration process and quality of publications in the country.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the construction of articles published in three highly ranked interdisciplinary accounting journals.

The analysis is based on articles published during 2010 in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (AAAJ), Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) and Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA). The authors develop a framework and examine characteristics of the published articles, including the prose.

Based on the construction of accounting academic articles in the highly ranked interdisciplinary journals, the authors introduce a simplified concept of the five distinct major parts of an article, make some taken-for-granted aspects of article construction explicit and conclude that alternatives, if used effectively, can add to the quality of an article. Finally, there is a discussion of, and a reflection on, how the taken-for-granted rules of academic publishing can be challenged.

This article is limited by the authors ' own analysis and interpretations of AAAJ, AOS and CPA articles published during 2010.

As far as can be ascertained, the authors are the first to examine the construction of research articles published in high ranking interdisciplinary accounting journals. The paper can assist emerging scholars in the process of planning and writing their own articles. For seasoned researchers, the paper ' s insights may serve to reaffirm or help further develop their approach. The paper also contributes to the ongoing debate around the pressure to publish, the measurement of publications, and the difficulties of getting published.

The social science research community in higher education in the United Kingdom constitutes the largest group of staff covered by any of the six research councils. Over 25% of the people entered in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) had a social science base. This chapter examines the way the pattern of social science research in the UK has been affected by, mainly, the RAE, the interpretations and strategic implementations that flow from it, and the funding allocations it informs. It draws on my own previous work, and that of others across a range of social science disciplines, as well as a small survey of active researchers conducted in late 2004/early 2005 as processes were set in train for the 2008 exercise. The critique of a process based mainly on peer review provides food for thought for those in Australia, where a research quality assessment exercise is in prospect. Paradoxically, the UK may be moving, after 2008, to an approach close to the one being abandoned in Australia.