Search results

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.

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 define the scientific production and productivity, and to present the main indicators for the measurement of the scientific activity. The impact of the research is to be measured and analyzed through citation analysis.

This is an exploratory study made at the Transilvania University of Brasov to evaluate the research output of the faculty. The author analyzed the 2008 research performance as documented in its annual evaluation that states the number of papers, books, and research contracts. Using Publish or Perish, the author calculated the H‐index, G‐index, HC‐index and HI norm, of the 60 more‐productive professors. Correlation indicators are presented and the importance of open access tools and repositories for increasing the impact of scientific research is discussed.

The Publish or Perish software is an easy to use instrument for analyzing the impact of research. It calculates the impact of the researchers using the very visible resource, Google Scholar. Google Scholar has better indexing of proceedings and non‐English language material than ISI Web of Science but does not perform so well tracking citations from books and chapters of books.

Authors' impact analysis and citations are not an assessment tool in Romanian universities, but it is commonly accepted that increasing research impact through more citations is one qualitative indicator.

It was suggested to the faculty that all professors have to be analysed with the same indicator. Further, Google Scholar and the H‐index obtained using Publish or Perish offer tools for assessing scientific research in a university and for evaluating professors.

The results showed that an open access institutional repository would significantly add to the visibility of the university's scientific production.

The paper presents the methodology and the results of an exploratory study made at the Transilvania University of Brasov regarding the H‐Index of the academic staff. It analyzes the research performances achieved by Brasov academic community in 2008, as realised in its annual evaluation – number of papers, books, research contracts, etc. – by comparing the four indexes of those 60 professors with the best results.

The purpose of this paper is to is to discuss the results of recent experiments in calculating the h‐index and other bibliometric and scientometric indicators from Google Scholar with the Publish or Perish software.

The paper discusses the Publish or Perish (PoP) software and finds that is a swift and elegant tool to provide the essential output features that Google Scholar does not offer.

It is found that PoP allows the user to edit the result lists presented in a compact, efficient grid‐format. It facilitates the identification and removal of duplicate entries by offering dynamic sorting of the set by eight metadata elements, un‐checking items and instant recalculation of the indicators.

Some changes are recommended to enhance this useful utility by allowing users to clean and edit the erroneous entries in the result set, and then back‐load it to PoP for the recalculation of the indicators. It is also suggested that the option to upload into PoP the result lists produced in CSV format from Web of Science and Scopus (which have much more reliable and reproducible data than Google Scholar) should also be offered.

The purpose of this essay is to explore the opportunities and challenges that early-career researchers (ECRs) face when they seek to contribute to academic knowledge production through research activities “other than” those directly focused on making progress with their own, to-be-published, research papers in a context associated with the “publish or perish” (PoP) mentality.

Drawing broadly on the notion of technologies of humility (Jasanoff, 2003), this reflective essay develops upon the experiences of the authors in organizing and participating in a series of nine workshops undertaken between June 2013 and April 2021, as well as the arduous process of writing this paper itself. Retrospective accounts, workshop materials, email exchanges and surveys of workshop participants provide the key data sources for the analysis presented in the paper.

The paper shows how the organization of the workshops is intertwined with the building of a small community of ECRs and exploration of how to address the perceived limitations of a “gap-spotting” approach to developing research ideas and questions. The analysis foregrounds how the workshops provide a seemingly valuable research experience that is not without contradictions. Workshop participation reveals tensions between engagement in activities “other than” working on papers for publication and institutionalized pressures to produce publication outputs, between the (weak) perceived status of ECRs in the field and the aspiration to make a scholarly contribution, and between the desire to develop a personally satisfying intellectual journey and the pressure to respond to requirements that allow access to a wider community of scholars.

Our analysis contributes to debates about the ways in which seemingly valuable outputs are produced in academia despite a pervasive “publish or perish” mentality. The analysis also shows how reflexive writing can help to better understand the opportunities and challenges of pursuing activities that might be considered “unproductive” because they are not directly related to to-be-published papers.

This paper aims to discuss some caveats about the findings of Part 1 of the Royal Society's report from the perspective of the choice and reliability of the source base, and the bibliometric and scientometric indicators.

The paper argues that the Royal Society's report gives too much emphasis to the growth rate of the publications of Chinese researchers when interpolating those data and forecasting that, within the decade and possibly as early as 2013, China will be ahead of even the USA in terms of the number of publications.

In an era when the “publish or perish” slogan is replaced by the “get cited or perish” mantra, the report barely discusses how much China is behind the world average and especially the above countries in terms of the most important scientometric indicators that take into account the productivity/quantity aspect and the citedness of publications as a proxy for quality.

The paper illustrates that there are much better measures for the assessment of research activity than the one‐dimensional productivity numbers, such as the h‐index or the uncitedness rate, and the citations/publication rate where China is far below and the USA is far above the world average scores, and uses some charts to paint a more realistic picture of the scientific landscape.

The purpose of this paper is to understand individual academics’ perception, attitudes and participation in Open Access Publishing and open scholarship and revisit some principles and designs of openness in academic publishing from the perspective of creative end-users, which helps to increase the sustainability and efficiency of open models.

This paper draws on a case study of China and empirical data collected through semi-structured interviews with a wide range of academics and stakeholders.

A separation between the communication and certification functions of publishing is identified: open initiatives are valued for efficient and interactive communication while traditional publishing still dominates the legitimacy of research publications, which leads to the quandary of individual academics operating within the transitional landscape of scholarly communication.

Practical recommendations for sustainable and efficient openness are derived from discussions on the difficulties associated open/social certification and the shifting maxims that govern academics from “publish or perish” to “be visible or vanish”.

“Openness” is defined in broad sense integrating Open Access and open scholarship to comprehensively reflect individual academics’ views in the transitional landscape of academic publishing. The research findings suggest that new open approaches are needed to address the evolving tension and conflicts between communication and certification.