lynx   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0257340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How faculty define quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals

Author

Listed:
  • Esteban Morales
  • Erin C McKiernan
  • Meredith T Niles
  • Lesley Schimanski
  • Juan Pablo Alperin
Abstract
Despite the calls for change, there is significant consensus that when it comes to evaluating publications, review, promotion, and tenure processes should aim to reward research that is of high "quality," is published in "prestigious" journals, and has an "impact." Nevertheless, such terms are highly subjective and present challenges to ascertain precisely what such research looks like. Accordingly, this article responds to the question: how do faculty from universities in the United States and Canada define the terms quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals? We address this question by surveying 338 faculty members from 55 different institutions in the U.S. and Canada. While relying on self-reported definitions that are not linked to their behavior, this study’s findings highlight that faculty often describe these distinct terms in overlapping ways. Additionally, results show that marked variance in definitions across faculty does not correspond to demographic characteristics. This study’s results highlight the subjectivity of common research terms and the importance of implementing evaluation regimes that do not rely on ill-defined concepts and may be context specific.

Suggested Citation

  • Esteban Morales & Erin C McKiernan & Meredith T Niles & Lesley Schimanski & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2021. "How faculty define quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-13, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0257340
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257340
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257340&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0257340?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "The Use of Bibliometrics for Assessing Research: Possibilities, Limitations and Adverse Effects," Springer Books, in: Isabell M. Welpe & Jutta Wollersheim & Stefanie Ringelhan & Margit Osterloh (ed.), Incentives and Performance, edition 127, pages 121-139, Springer.
    2. Luke Holman & Devi Stuart-Fox & Cindy E Hauser, 2018. "The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-20, April.
    3. repec:cdl:cshedu:qt0kr8s78v is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Denes Szucs & John P A Ioannidis, 2017. "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, March.
    5. repec:cdl:cshedu:qt15x7385g is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Anna Hatch, 2019. "To fix research assessment, swap slogans for definitions," Nature, Nature, vol. 576(7785), pages 9-9, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    2. Wenxuan Shi & Renli Wu, 2024. "Women’s strength in science: exploring the influence of female participation on research impact and innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4529-4551, July.
    3. Kleber Neves & Pedro B Tan & Olavo B Amaral, 2022. "Are most published research findings false in a continuous universe?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Kai Li & Xiang Zheng & Chaoqun Ni, 2025. "Gender disparities in the STEM research enterprise in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Gabriela Fontanarrosa & Lucía Zarbá & Valeria Aschero & Daniel Andrés Dos Santos & María Gabriela Nuñez Montellano & Maia C Plaza Behr & Natalia Schroeder & Silvia Beatriz Lomáscolo & María Elisa Fanj, 2024. "Over twenty years of publications in Ecology: Over-contribution of women reveals a new dimension of gender bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-18, September.
    6. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    7. Kwiek, Marek & Szymula, Łukasz, 2024. "Growth of Science and Women: Methodological Challenges of Using Structured Big Data," SocArXiv w34pr, Center for Open Science.
    8. Josh Yamamoto & Eitan Frachtenberg, 2022. "Gender Differences in Collaboration Patterns in Computer Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2024. "Gender bias in team formation: the case of the European Science Foundation’s grants," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 247-260.
    10. Sorana-Alexandra Constantinescu & Maria-Henriete Pozsar, 2022. "Was This Supposed to Be on the Test? Academic Leadership, Gender and the COVID-19 Pandemic in Denmark, Hungary, Romania, and United Kingdom," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, April.
    11. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Do gendered citation advantages influence field participation? Four unusual fields in the USA 1996–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 2133-2144, December.
    12. Schmal, W. Benedikt & Haucap, Justus & Knoke, Leon, 2023. "The role of gender and coauthors in academic publication behavior," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    13. Rinne, Sonja, 2024. "Estimating the merit-order effect using coarsened exact matching: Reconciling theory with the empirical results to improve policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    14. Andreas Schneck, 2023. "Are most published research findings false? Trends in statistical power, publication selection bias, and the false discovery rate in psychology (1975–2017)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-18, October.
    15. repec:osf:socarx:w34pr_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Fengyuan Liu & Petter Holme & Matteo Chiesa & Bedoor AlShebli & Talal Rahwan, 2023. "Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(3), pages 353-364, March.
    17. repec:osf:socarx:3fapz_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. repec:osf:socarx:ep5bx_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Erica L. Gallindo & Hobson A. Cruz & Mário W. L. Moreira, 2021. "Critical Examination Using Business Intelligence on the Gender Gap in Information Technology in Brazil," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(15), pages 1-9, August.
    20. Pat O’Connor & Gemma Irvine, 2020. "Multi-Level State Interventions and Gender Equality in Higher Education Institutions: The Irish Case," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, December.
    21. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    22. Rashieda Davids & Pauline Scheelbeek & Nafiisa Sobratee & Rosemary Green & Barbara Häesler & Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi & Suparna Chatterjee & Nikhil Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy & Georgina Mace & Alan , 2021. "Towards the Three Dimensions of Sustainability for International Research Team Collaboration: Learnings from the Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems Research Programme," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-24, November.
    23. Victoria Bogdan & Delia Deliu & Tomina Săveanu & Olimpia Iuliana Ban & Dorina Nicoleta Popa, 2020. "Roll the Dice—Let’s See If Differences Really Matter! Accounting Judgments and Sustainable Decisions in the Light of a Gender and Age Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-31, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0257340. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    Лучший частный хостинг