Margit Osterloh1, Bruno S Frey2. 1. Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany CREMA-Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany CREMA-Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts, Zurich, Switzerland bruno.frey@econ.uzh.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research rankings based on bibliometrics today dominate governance in academia and determine careers in universities. METHOD: Analytical approach to capture the incentives by users of rankings and by suppliers of rankings, both on an individual and an aggregate level. RESULT: Rankings may produce unintended negative side effects. In particular, rankings substitute the "taste for science" by a "taste for publication." We show that the usefulness of rankings rests on several important assumptions challenged by recent research. CONCLUSION: We suggest as alternatives careful socialization and selection of scholars, supplemented by periodic self-evaluations and awards. The aim is to encourage controversial discourses in order to contribute meaningful to the advancement of science.
BACKGROUND: Research rankings based on bibliometrics today dominate governance in academia and determine careers in universities. METHOD: Analytical approach to capture the incentives by users of rankings and by suppliers of rankings, both on an individual and an aggregate level. RESULT: Rankings may produce unintended negative side effects. In particular, rankings substitute the "taste for science" by a "taste for publication." We show that the usefulness of rankings rests on several important assumptions challenged by recent research. CONCLUSION: We suggest as alternatives careful socialization and selection of scholars, supplemented by periodic self-evaluations and awards. The aim is to encourage controversial discourses in order to contribute meaningful to the advancement of science.