What research outputs do faculty believe are valued in RPT decisions? How do these beliefs affect where and what they publish?

Alice Fleerackers

*By Meredith T. Niles, Lesley Schimanski, Erin McKiernan, and Juan Pablo
Alperin -- with Alice Fleerackers *

<figure id="attachment_2110" class="wp-caption alignnone"
aria-describedby="caption-attachment-2110" style="width: 833px">
<img
src="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screen-Shot-2019-07-22-at-2.28.31-PM.png"
class="wp-image-2110 size-full" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screen-Shot-2019-07-22-at-2.28.31-PM.png 833w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screen-Shot-2019-07-22-at-2.28.31-PM-300x141.png 300w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screen-Shot-2019-07-22-at-2.28.31-PM-768x360.png 768w"
sizes="(max-width: 833px) 100vw, 833px" width="833" height="391"
alt="an academic institution " />
<figcaption>“Columbia University” by sottolestelle</figcaption>
</figure>

As tenured faculty positions become increasingly competitive, the
pressure to publish---especially in "high impact" journals---has never
been greater. As a result, many of today's academics believe having a
strong [publication record is
necessary](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5175/JSWE.2007.200600050){target="_blank"
rel="noopener noreferrer"} for the review, promotion, and tenure (RPT)
process. Publishing, for some, has become synonymous with professional
success.

Yet little is known about academics' perceptions of the RPT process and
how they influence their publishing decisions. What research outputs do
faculty believe are valued in RPT decisions? How do these beliefs affect
where and what they publish?

To find out, we surveyed faculty of 55 academic institutions across the
US and Canada, asking them about their own publishing priorities and
those of their peers, as well as their perceptions importance within
review, promotion, and tenure. Here's what we found:

## [**Faculty prioritize journal readership in publishing decisions...**]{style="color: #000000;"}

When it comes to deciding where to publish their work, academics
reported valuing journal audience above all other factors. The top three
factors they identified were:

1.  Whether the journal had a readership they wanted to reach
2.  The overall prestige of the journal
3.  Whether the journal was regularly read by their peers

Of course, other factors, like the journal's impact factor (JIF) or the
fees associated with publication, were still important to many faculty,
but to a lesser degree than readership:

<figure id="attachment_2165" class="wp-caption alignnone"
aria-describedby="caption-attachment-2165" style="width: 908px">
<img
src="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-1.png"
class="wp-image-2165 size-full" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-1.png 908w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-1-300x154.png 300w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-1-768x394.png 768w"
sizes="(max-width: 908px) 100vw, 908px" width="908" height="466"
alt="Chart illustrating Importance of various factors when respondents consider where to submit their academic work for publication." />
<figcaption>Importance of various factors when respondents consider
where to submit their academic work for publication. Scale ranges from 1
(not important) to 6 (very important).</figcaption>
</figure>

Importantly, we saw some significant demographic differences among
faculty in their publishing priorities. Non-tenured respondents---who
are under greater pressure to perform than tenured faculty---placed
higher importance on the JIF, for example. Younger faculty were also
more likely to prioritize factors like journal citation frequency and
journal prestige, compared to older, more established peers.

## [**...but faculty believe their peers value prestige above all else. **]{style="color: #000000;"} {#but-faculty-believe-their-peers-value-prestige-above-all-else.}

When it came to evaluating *others'* publishing priorities, however,
faculty responded quite differently. They believed their peers would be
more likely to value factors like journal prestige and JIF when deciding
where to publish their work. They also believed their peers would be
less likely to make decisions based on the journal's readership or open
access status:

<figure id="attachment_2166" class="wp-caption alignnone"
aria-describedby="caption-attachment-2166" style="width: 884px">
<img
src="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-2.png"
class="size-full wp-image-2166" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-2.png 884w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-2-300x158.png 300w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-2-768x405.png 768w"
sizes="(max-width: 884px) 100vw, 884px" width="884" height="466"
alt="Chart illustrating Importance of various factors respondents think their peers consider when submitting their academic work for publication." />
<figcaption>Importance of various factors respondents think their peers
consider when submitting their academic work for publication. Scale
ranges from 1 (not important) to 6 (very important).</figcaption>
</figure>

 

This sense of [illusory
superiority](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14792779343000040){target="_blank"
rel="noopener noreferrer"} when comparing oneself to peers is nothing
new, but it was interesting to see it come into play in our survey.

## [**Academics see publication quantity and journal reputation as top factors in RPT decisions **]{style="color: #000000;"} {#academics-see-publication-quantity-and-journal-reputation-as-top-factors-in-rpt-decisions}

Next, we asked faculty what factors they believed were valued most
during the RPT process. We found a notable disjoint between their own
publishing priorities and what they felt would benefit their careers.

Faculty identified the following three factors as being most important
for RPT decisions:

1.  Total number of publications
2.  Number of publications per year
3.  Journal name recognition

<figure id="attachment_2167" class="wp-caption alignnone"
aria-describedby="caption-attachment-2167" style="width: 885px">
<img
src="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-3.png"
class="size-full wp-image-2167" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-3.png 885w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-3-300x158.png 300w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Figure-3-768x405.png 768w"
sizes="(max-width: 885px) 100vw, 885px" width="885" height="467"
alt="Chart illustrating Perceived value of factors in the RPT process. Bars show percentage of respondents." />
<figcaption>Perceived value of factors in the RPT process. Bars show
percentage of respondents. Scale ranges from 1 (not valued) to 6 (very
valued).</figcaption>
</figure>

 

Again, there were important demographic differences among faculty, with
older, tenured respondents---those most likely to serve on RPT
committees---being were less likely to value journal prestige and
publishing metrics, compared to untenured respondents.

## [**Faculty's beliefs about the RPT process are key to their publishing decisions **]{style="color: #000000;"} {#facultys-beliefs-about-the-rpt-process-are-key-to-their-publishing-decisions}

Finally, we explored how academics' perceptions of the RPT process
affected their own publishing priorities through a series of models. In
short, we found that these perceptions of what is valued by the RPT
process were more likely to predict publication decisions than age,
gender, or publication history.

## [**Conclusion **]{style="color: #000000;"} {#conclusion}

Together, these results paint a complex picture of the pressures faculty
face when deciding where to publish their work. On the one hand, most
academics value the readership of a journal over its citation metrics.
Yet, this value is at odds with the factors they believe will help them
succeed in the RPT process---publication quantity and journal
reputation---even though tenured faculty and those often on RPT
committees didn't value these factors as highly. Adding to this are the
disjoints between faculty's own publishing priorities and how they
perceive those of their peers. Such disjoints highlight clear pathways
for conversation in academia about what is most valued by communities
for their scholarship, conversations we hope this work can help
facilitate.

***The results of this survey build on previous work examining the role
of*** [***public
scholarship***](https://elifesciences.org/articles/42254){target="_blank"
rel="noopener noreferrer"} ***and the*** [***journal impact
factor***](https://peerj.com/preprints/27638/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener noreferrer"} ***in RPT documents. Read the full preprint
at
[bioRxiv](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/706622v1){target="_blank"
rel="noopener noreferrer"}, or find out more about the RPT Project on
the*** [***scholcommlab
website***](http://www.scholcommlab.ca/research/rpt-project/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener noreferrer"}***.***


*By Meredith T. Niles, Lesley Schimanski, Erin McKiernan, and Juan Pablo Alperin – with Alice Fleerackers *  As tenured faculty positions become increasingly competitive, the pressure to publish—especially in “high impact” journals—has never been greater. As a result, many of today’s academics believe having a strong publication record is necessary for the review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) process.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Publish or perish? Faculty publishing decisions and the RPT process