The moderating role of personal characteristics of authors in the publications’ quality for quantity trade-off

IF 3.4 2区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Journal of Informetrics Pub Date : 2024-01-07 DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2024.101495

Giovanni Abramo , CiriacoAndrea D'Angelo , Flavia Di Costa

{"title":"The moderating role of personal characteristics of authors in the publications’ quality for quantity trade-off","authors":"Giovanni Abramo , CiriacoAndrea D'Angelo , Flavia Di Costa","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The rise of quantitative research evaluations has led researchers to adopt publication strategies that enable the pursuit of entry and career progression within institutions. Depending on the performance evaluation criteria adopted, researchers emphasize more on publication quantity, impact, prestige of hosting journals, or seek a combination. What we investigate in this paper is the nature of the impact for quantity trade-off with, in particular, control for the moderating role of the personal characteristics of authors. The dataset concerns approximately 29,000 Italian professors representing 200 scientific fields. As necessary, the analyses are field normalized. The evidence seems to support the presence of an impact for quantity trade-off. While single-variate analyses show a positive correlation between the two dimensions, a more complex econometric model, controlling for a range of individual characteristics of researchers, indicates a negative marginal effect of the size of a scholar's scientific output on average impact.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000087/pdfft?md5=ddb4dc045f42158601234065921662f7&pid=1-s2.0-S1751157724000087-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Informetrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000087","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rise of quantitative research evaluations has led researchers to adopt publication strategies that enable the pursuit of entry and career progression within institutions. Depending on the performance evaluation criteria adopted, researchers emphasize more on publication quantity, impact, prestige of hosting journals, or seek a combination. What we investigate in this paper is the nature of the impact for quantity trade-off with, in particular, control for the moderating role of the personal characteristics of authors. The dataset concerns approximately 29,000 Italian professors representing 200 scientific fields. As necessary, the analyses are field normalized. The evidence seems to support the presence of an impact for quantity trade-off. While single-variate analyses show a positive correlation between the two dimensions, a more complex econometric model, controlling for a range of individual characteristics of researchers, indicates a negative marginal effect of the size of a scholar's scientific output on average impact.

查看原文本刊更多论文

作者个人特征在出版物数量与质量权衡中的调节作用

定量研究评估的兴起促使研究人员采取发表论文的策略，以便在机构内谋求晋升和职业发展。根据所采用的绩效评价标准，研究人员会更加重视发表数量、影响力、主办期刊的声望，或寻求两者的结合。我们在本文中研究的是影响与数量权衡的本质，特别是控制作者个人特征的调节作用。数据集涉及代表 200 个科学领域的约 29,000 名意大利教授。必要时，对分析进行了领域归一化处理。证据似乎支持存在数量权衡的影响。虽然单变量分析表明这两个维度之间存在正相关，但一个更复杂的计量经济学模型（控制了研究人员的一系列个人特征）表明，学者的科研成果规模对平均影响力的边际效应为负。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Informetrics Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences

CiteScore

6.40

自引率

16.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Journal of Informetrics (JOI) publishes rigorous high-quality research on quantitative aspects of information science. The main focus of the journal is on topics in bibliometrics, scientometrics, webometrics, patentometrics, altmetrics and research evaluation. Contributions studying informetric problems using methods from other quantitative fields, such as mathematics, statistics, computer science, economics and econometrics, and network science, are especially encouraged. JOI publishes both theoretical and empirical work. In general, case studies, for instance a bibliometric analysis focusing on a specific research field or a specific country, are not considered suitable for publication in JOI, unless they contain innovative methodological elements.