Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Researchers’ risk-smoothing publication strategies: Is productivity the enemy of impact?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the quest for balance between research productivity and impact, researchers in science and engineering are often encouraged to adopt a play-it-safe research and publication strategy that allows them to maintain high publication productivity and accelerate their career advancement but may reduce the likelihood of high impact or breakthrough research outcomes. In this paper, we analyze bibliometric data from Scopus and present results for the relationship between publication strategies, publishing productivity and citation-based publication impact for 227 full professors of chemistry and 148 professors of mechanical engineering at ten research-intensive universities in the United States. The results indicate some evidence for the “productivity as the enemy of impact” hypothesis in chemistry, where publishing at the higher margin of productivity leads to a stagnant or declining publication impact. Findings differ for mechanical engineering, where higher publishing productivity consistently leads to higher publication impact. We attribute the differences in findings between the disciplines to a higher propensity for productivity-focused publication strategies in chemistry than in mechanical engineering.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, A., Cyranoski, D., Jones, N., Maher, B., Schiermeier, Q., & Van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: Do metrics matter? Nature News, 465(7300), 860–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones? Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelique, H., Kyle, K., & Taylor, E. (2002). Mentors and muses: New strategies for academic success. Innovative Higher Education, 26(3), 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151–161.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, C., Graversen, E. K., & Pedersen, H. S. (2014). Competitive research grants and their impact on career performance. Minerva, 52(1), 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2011). Mimicry in science? Scientometrics, 86(1), 173–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). Multiple publication on a single research study: Does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1100–1107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of documentation, 64(1), 45–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosquet, C., & Combes, P. P. (2013). Are academics who publish more also more cited? Individual determinants of publication and citation records. Scientometrics, 97(3), 831–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2014). Research collaboration and team science: A state-of-the-art review and agenda. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36, 694–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Rogers, J. D. (2002). A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Research Policy, 31(5), 769–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva, 49(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Youtie, J. (2016). Trouble in paradise: Problems in academic research co-authoring. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(6), 1717–1743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Youtie, J. (2017). The strength in numbers: The new science of team science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M. (1989). Institutional variability in faculty conformity to the norms of science: A force of integration or fragmentation in the academic profession? Research in Higher Education, 30, 419–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broad, W. J. (1981). The publishing game: Getting more for less. Science, 211(4487), 1137–1139.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J. M., & Stewart, K. N. (2015). Is there such a thing as “Least Publishable Unit”? An empirical investigation. LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 25(2), 78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buddemeier, R. W. (1981). Least publishable unit. Science, 212(4494), 494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. (2003). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabbolet, M. J. T. F. (2016). The least interesting unit: A new concept for enhancing one’s academic career opportunities. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(6), 1837–1841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2015). About carnegie classification. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/. Accessed February 19 2018.

  • Cheung, W. W. (2008). The economics of post-doc publishing. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 41–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M. H. (2009). Commercialization of the university and problem choice by academic biological scientists. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34(5), 629–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The H-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of informetrics, 1(3), 193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2011). Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective. Scientometrics, 88(1), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, N. E. (2011). The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 704–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Solla Price, D. J. (1971). The expansion of scientific knowledge. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 184(1), 257–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Rappa, M. A. (1994). Institutional variations in problem choice and persistence among scientists in an emerging field. Research Policy, 23(4), 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, L. G., Parkes, K. A., Tilley-Lubbs, G. A., Brill, J. M., & Pitts Bannister, V. R. (2009). Navigating the lonely sea: Peer mentoring and collaboration among aspiring women scholars. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ductor, L. (2015). Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 77(3), 385–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrizio, K. R., & Di Minin, A. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy, 37(5), 914–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feller, I. (2009). Performance measurement and the governance of American academic science. Minerva, 47(3), 323–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U., Igelsböck, J., Schikowitz, A., & Völker, T. (2016). Transdisciplinary sustainability research in practice between imaginaries of collective experimentation and entrenched academic value orders. Science, Technology and Human Values, 41(4), 732–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garousi, V., & Fernandes, J. M. (2017). Quantity versus impact of software engineering papers: A quantitative study. Scientometrics, 112(2), 963–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, G. (1978). Measuring the growth of science: A review of indicators of scientific growth. Scientometrics, 1(1), 9–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingras, Y., Larivière, V., Macaluso, B., & Robitaille, J.-P. (2009). The effects of aging on researchers’ publication and citation patterns. PLoS ONE, 3(12), e4048. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleeson, M., & Biddle, S. (2000). Editorial duplicate publishing and the least publishable unit. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(4), 227–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenna, L. L., Welsh, R., Ervin, D., Lacy, W. B., & Biscotti, D. (2011). Commercial science, scientists’ values, and university biotechnology research agendas. Research Policy, 40(7), 957–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Brambila, C., & Veloso, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36(7), 1035–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenewegen, P. (2002). Accommodating science to external demands: The emergence of Dutch toxicology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 27(4), 479–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, B. M., Sharma, P., & Karisiddappa, C. R. (1997). Growth of research literature in scientific specialities. A modelling perspective. Scientometrics, 40(3), 507–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., & Laham, S. M. (2010). Quality, quantity, and impact in academic publication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 216–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Z. L., Geng, X. S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2009). Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university. Research Policy, 38(2), 306–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38(4), 610–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hottenrott, H., & Lawson, C. (2014). Research grants, sources of ideas and the effects on academic research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23(2), 109–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huth, E. J. (1986). Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. Annals of Internal Medicine, 104(2), 257–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P., Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Estimates of the continuously publishing core in the scientific workforce. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e101698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jabbehdari, S., & Walsh, J. P. (2017). Authorship norms and project structures in science. Science, Technology and Human Values, 42(5), 872–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, A., & Kasztler, A. (2009). Differences in publication and dissemination practices between disciplinary and transdisciplinary science and the consequences for research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 36(3), 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S., Ennis, J. G., & Weissman, R. (1991). Academic–corporate ties in biotechnology: A quantitative study. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(3), 275–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., & Costas, R. (2016). How many is too many? On the relationship between research productivity and impact. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0162709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46(3), 417–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 81(1), 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillquist, E., & Green, S. (2010). The discipline dependence of citation statistics. Scientometrics, 84(3), 749–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovakov, A., & Pislyakov, V. (2017). Authors’ publication strategies and citation distributions in journals. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on scientometrics & informetrics (pp. 1489–1495). International Society for Scientometrics and Infometrics.

  • Luukkonen, T., & Thomas, D. A. (2016). The ‘Negotiated Space’ of University Researchers’ pursuit of a research agenda. Minerva, 54(1), 99–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magerman, T., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2015). Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint? An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology. Research Policy, 44(9), 1702–1713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magyar, G. (1975). Typology of research in physics. Social Studies of Science, 5(1), 79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor–authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy, 35(10), 1646–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. N., Taylor, S. G., & Bedeian, A. G. (2011). Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Development International, 16(5), 422–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Münch, R., & Baier, C. (2012). Institutional struggles for recognition in the academic field: The case of university departments in German chemistry. Minerva, 50(1), 97–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2005). Bridges to independence: Fostering the independence of new investigators in biomedical research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedeva, M., Boden, R., & Nugroho, Y. (2012). Rank and file: Managing individual performance in university research. Higher Education Policy, 25(3), 335–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oni, T., Sciarrino, F., Adesso, G., & Knight, R. (2016). Let researchers try new paths. Nature, 538(7626), 451–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, W. J. (2004). In defense of the least publishable unit. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(23), C1–C4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer, K., & Webster, A. (1996). Patenting culture in science: Reinventing the scientific wheel of credibility. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(4), 427–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podlubny, I. (2005). Comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science. Scientometrics, 64(1), 95–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (2000). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 38(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawat, S., & Meena, S. (2014). Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 19(2), 87–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Refinetti, R. (1990). In defense of the least publishable unit. The FASEB Journal, 4(1), 128–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (2006). The price of truth: How money affects the norms of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R. J., & Daston, L. (Eds.). (2016). Kuhn’s’ structure of scientific revolutions’ at fifty: Reflections on a science classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salinas, S., & Munch, S. B. (2015). Where should I send it? Optimizing the submission decision process. PLoS ONE, 10(1), e0115451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandström, U., & van den Besselaar, P. (2016). Quantity and/or quality? The importance of publishing many papers. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0166149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarrico, C. S., Rosa, M. J., Teixeira, P. N., & Cardoso, M. F. (2010). Assessing quality and evaluating performance in higher education: Worlds apart or complementary views? Minerva, 48(1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slone, R. M. (1996). Coauthors’ contributions to major papers published in the AJR: Frequency of undeserved coauthorship. American Journal of Roentgenology, 167(3), 571–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Besselaar, P., Heyman, U., & Sandström, U. (2017). Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler’s Australian case revisited. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 905–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3), 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (1997). Relations of relative scientometric impact indicators. The relative publication strategy index. Scientometrics, 40(1), 163–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., & Lee, Y. N. (2015). The bureaucratization of science. Research Policy, 44(8), 1584–1600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, E. (2016). Disciplinary knowledge production and diffusion in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2223–2245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. M. (1987). The problem of “problem choice”. Minerva, 25(1), 92–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (1994). Prometheus bound: Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. (1978). Theory choice and problem choice in science. Sociological Inquiry, 48(3–4), 65–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the work of Craig Boardman who assisted with the conceptualization of the study and two anonymous reviewers for invaluable suggestions for improving this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Organization Research and Design, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ, 85004-3720, USA

    Sergey Kolesnikov, Eriko Fukumoto & Barry Bozeman

Authors
  1. Sergey Kolesnikov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eriko Fukumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barry Bozeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergey Kolesnikov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kolesnikov, S., Fukumoto, E. & Bozeman, B. Researchers’ risk-smoothing publication strategies: Is productivity the enemy of impact?. Scientometrics 116, 1995–2017 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2793-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2793-8

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation