3 ms·

I have heard that. If I remember correctly many colleges push for a certain number of publications per year.

superuser2 12y ago
It's pretty difficult to lose tenure (that's the point), but publication volume and quality are pretty much the metric for hiring and promoting faculty. Just like standardized testing at the undergraduate admissions level, it's pretty much inevitable that some people will attempt to game the metric instead of what it's supposed to reflect.
- scott_s 12y ago
  I think that hiring faculty will tend to be primarily about publications. But promoting faculty will also depend on pulling in grants - perhaps even more so.
  - p4bl0 12y ago
    True. But guess what is among the important parameters to decide to whom a grant is given. Bingo: bibliometrics here too.
    - scott_s 12y ago
      Of course. But if a professor has the publications, but not the grants, they may not get promoted.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    It's my understanding that grants themselves go more to those with more publications and citations.
    - Tloewald 12y ago
      Grants and publications become a virtuous circle. Getting grants gives you time and resources (and prestige) to get publications. Getting publications is the gateway to getting grants (before you have grants), and getting more grants (once you have grants). E.g. the measure of a grant-getter's success (at utilizing a grant) is generally the number and "quality" of publications the grant generates.
      - scott_s 12y ago
        I agree, but you're leaving out the money part. Schools get a cut of all grants. From the school's perspective, the grant itself is valuable. So when it comes time to evaluate tenure and other promotions, they will look at both.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        pgbovine 12y ago
        yep, absolutely right. the amounts vary a lot by school, but typically your school gets 1/3. So if your grant is for $300k, you keep $200k, and your school gets $100k. thus when evaluating two faculty with comparable numbers of publications, the one who's brought in more money is more valuable to the department ... literally :)
- Estragon 12y ago
  I would say the metric, at least in fields with a lot of money, is actually the amount of funding you bring in. Of course, publication record has a big influence on that, too.
jboggan 12y ago
This trickles down to the grad students and their relationship with their advisors. The deal we were given was: "publish three papers and you get your PhD". This creates some really perverse incentives on both sides.
- pgbovine 12y ago
  that sounds like pretty clear expectations to me, much better than the nebulous "do something novel for a few years, impress some old people, and then maybe you'll get a PhD, just maybe." yes, the game is imperfect and always stacked against newbies (as any game is), but at least you know where the goalposts are. the experience of my peers in grad school mirrored this "three papers -> PhD" heuristic: http://www.pgbovine.net/PhD-overview.htm http://www.pgbovine.net/PhD-overview.htm

It's pretty difficult to lose tenure (that's the point), but publication volume and quality are pretty much the metric for hiring and promoting faculty. Just like standardized testing at the undergraduate admissions level, it's pretty much inevitable that some people will attempt to game the metric instead of what it's supposed to reflect.

scott_s 12y ago
I think that hiring faculty will tend to be primarily about publications. But promoting faculty will also depend on pulling in grants - perhaps even more so.
- p4bl0 12y ago
  True. But guess what is among the important parameters to decide to whom a grant is given. Bingo: bibliometrics here too.
  - scott_s 12y ago
    Of course. But if a professor has the publications, but not the grants, they may not get promoted.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  It's my understanding that grants themselves go more to those with more publications and citations.
  - Tloewald 12y ago
    Grants and publications become a virtuous circle. Getting grants gives you time and resources (and prestige) to get publications. Getting publications is the gateway to getting grants (before you have grants), and getting more grants (once you have grants). E.g. the measure of a grant-getter's success (at utilizing a grant) is generally the number and "quality" of publications the grant generates.
    - scott_s 12y ago
      I agree, but you're leaving out the money part. Schools get a cut of all grants. From the school's perspective, the grant itself is valuable. So when it comes time to evaluate tenure and other promotions, they will look at both.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - pgbovine 12y ago
        yep, absolutely right. the amounts vary a lot by school, but typically your school gets 1/3. So if your grant is for $300k, you keep $200k, and your school gets $100k. thus when evaluating two faculty with comparable numbers of publications, the one who's brought in more money is more valuable to the department ... literally :)
Estragon 12y ago
I would say the metric, at least in fields with a lot of money, is actually the amount of funding you bring in. Of course, publication record has a big influence on that, too.

jboggan 12y ago

This trickles down to the grad students and their relationship with their advisors. The deal we were given was: "publish three papers and you get your PhD". This creates some really perverse incentives on both sides.

pgbovine 12y ago
that sounds like pretty clear expectations to me, much better than the nebulous "do something novel for a few years, impress some old people, and then maybe you'll get a PhD, just maybe." yes, the game is imperfect and always stacked against newbies (as any game is), but at least you know where the goalposts are. the experience of my peers in grad school mirrored this "three papers -> PhD" heuristic: http://www.pgbovine.net/PhD-overview.htm http://www.pgbovine.net/PhD-overview.htm