Dataset Information

How Many Is Too Many? On the Relationship between Research Productivity and Impact.

ABSTRACT: Over the last few decades, the institutionalisation of quantitative research evaluations has created incentives for scholars to publish as many papers as possible. This paper assesses the effects of such incentives on individual researchers' scientific impact, by analysing the relationship between their number of articles and their proportion of highly cited papers. In other words, does the share of an author's top 1% most cited papers increase, remain stable, or decrease as his/her total number of papers increase? Using a large dataset of disambiguated researchers (N = 28,078,476) over the 1980-2013 period, this paper shows that, on average, the higher the number of papers a researcher publishes, the higher the proportion of these papers are amongst the most cited. This relationship is stronger for older cohorts of researchers, while decreasing returns to scale are observed for recent cohorts. On the whole, these results suggest that for established researchers, the strategy of publishing as many papers as possible did not yield lower shares of highly cited publications, but such a pattern is not always observed for younger scholars.

SUBMITTER: Lariviere V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5040433 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How Many Is Too Many? On the Relationship between Research Productivity and Impact.

Larivière Vincent V Costas Rodrigo R

PloS one 20160928 9

Over the last few decades, the institutionalisation of quantitative research evaluations has created incentives for scholars to publish as many papers as possible. This paper assesses the effects of such incentives on individual researchers' scientific impact, by analysing the relationship between their number of articles and their proportion of highly cited papers. In other words, does the share of an author's top 1% most cited papers increase, remain stable, or decrease as his/her total number ...[more]

PMID: 27682366

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ideas about how plant competition varies with productivity are rooted in classic theories that predict either increasing (Grime) or invariant (Tilman) competition with increasing productivity. Both predictions have received experimental support, although a decade-old meta-analysis supports neither. Attempts to reconcile the conflicting predictions and evidence include: expanding the theory to include other conditions (e.g. stress gradient hypothesis), development of indices to differentiate either the 'intensity' or 'importance' of competition, a focus on resource supply and demand, and explicit recognition that both growth and survival may exhibit different relationships with productivity. To determine which of these theories accurately predict how competition varies with productivity within a native grassland site, we estimated competitive intensity and relative competitive importance using 22 species across the range of productivity naturally occurring within that site. Plant performance was measured as survival and size with and without neighbours and the local environment was quantified according to variability in standing crop, gross water supply, and net water supply. On average, neighbours weakly facilitated seedling survival, but strongly reduced seedling growth. For both seedling survival and growth, relative competitive importance and competitive intensity declined with some measure of productivity; neighbour effects on survival declined with standing crop, while effects on growth declined with gross water supply. These results add to the growing evidence that plant-plant interactions vary among life history components with different life history components contingent upon separate environmental factors. Although the range of productivity measured in this study was not large, our results do not support the theories of Grime or Tilman. However, our results are consistent with the meta-analysis and parts of other theories, although no single theory is capable of explaining the entirety of these results. This suggests that, at least in moderately productive grasslands, new theory needs to be developed.

Project description:The intense selection of chickens for production traits, such as egg laying, is thought to cause undesirable side effects and changes in behavior. Trade-offs resulting from energy expenditure in productivity may influence other traits: in order to sustain energetic costs for high egg production, energy expenditure may be redirected away from specific behavioral traits. For example, such energetic trade-offs may change the hens' cognitive abilities. Therefore, we hypothesized highly productive laying hens to show reduced learning performance in comparison to moderate productive lines. We examined the learning ability of four chicken lines that differed in laying performance (200 versus 300 eggs/year) and phylogenetic origin (brown/white layer; respectively, within performance). In total 61 hens were tested in semi-automated Skinner boxes in a three-phase learning paradigm (initial learning, reversal learning, extinction). To measure the hens' learning performance within each phase, we compared the number of active decisions needed to fulfill a learning criteria (80% correct choices for learning, 70% no responses at extinction) using linear models. Differences between the proportions of hens per line that reached criterion on each phase of the learning tasks were analyzed by using a Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis. A greater proportion of high productive hens achieved the learning criteria on each phase compared to less productive hens (Chi2 3 = 8.25, p = 0.041). Furthermore, high productive hens accomplished the learning criteria after fewer active decisions in the initial phase (p = 0.012) and in extinction (p = 0.004) compared to the less selected lines. Phylogenetic origin was associated with differences in learning in extinction. Our results contradict our hypothesis and indicate that the selection for productivity traits has led to changes in learning behavior and the high productive laying hens possessed a better learning strategy compared to moderate productive hens in a feeding-rewarding context. This better performance may be a response to constraints resulting from high selection as it may enable these hens to efficiently acquire additional energy resources. Underlying mechanisms for this may be directly related to differences in neuronal structure or indirectly to foraging strategies and changes in personality traits such as fearfulness and sociality.

Dataset Information

How Many Is Too Many? On the Relationship between Research Productivity and Impact.

Publications

How Many Is Too Many? On the Relationship between Research Productivity and Impact.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets