Suchergebnisse

In this article, we problematize the notion that the continuously growing use of bibliometric evaluation can be effectively explained by 'neoliberal' ideology. A prerequisite for our analysis is an understanding of neoliberalism as both denoting a more limited set of concrete principles for the organization of society (the narrow interpretation) or as a hegemonic ideology (the broad interpretation). This conceptual framework, as well as brief history of evaluative bibliometrics, provides an analytical framing for our approach, in which four national research evaluation systems are compared: Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. On basis of an analysis of the rationales for implementing these systems, as well as their specific design, we discuss the existence or non-existence of neoliberal motivations and rationales. Overall, we find that a relatively homogeneous academic landscape, with a high degree of centralization and government steering, appears to be a common feature for countries implementing national evaluation systems relying on bibliometrics. Such characteristics, we argue, may not be inductively understood as neoliberal but as indications of national states displaying strong political steering of its research system. Consequently, if used without further clarification, 'neoliberalism' is a concept too broad and diluted to be useful when analyzing the development of research evaluation and bibliometric measures in the past half a century.

Given the increased role of bibliometric measures in research evaluation, it is striking that studies of actual changes in research practice are rare. Most studies and comments on 'a metric culture' in academia focus on the ideological and political level, and there is a clear shortage of empirical studies that analyze how researchers handle demands for accountability in context. In adopting a mixed methods approach involving both bibliometric data and answers form questionnaires we provide an in-depth study of how researchers at the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University (Sweden) respond to the implementation of performance based research evaluation systems. Publication patterns from 2006-2013 show that journal publications, especially English-language ones, is increasing, and the proportion of peer-reviewed publications has doubled. These changes are in line with the incentives of the evaluation systems under study. Answers to the survey confirm that scholars are conscious about this development and several respondents articulate a disagreement between disciplinary norms and external demands. However, disciplinary background as well as career stage or academic age appears to have a significant influence on how individual researchers react to the instigation of evaluation systems. Finally, responses to national and local evaluation regimes are complex, localized and dependent on many factors. In-depth contextualized studies of research practices are needed in order to understand how performance based funding systems influence academic research on the ground.

In this paper we study the diversity of users of open access articles on the Finnish Journal.fi platform. This platform hosts around hundred open access journals from Finland publishing in different fields and mainly Finnish and English languages. The study is based on an online survey, conducted on 48 journals during Spring 2020, in which visitors were asked to indicate their background and allow their location and download behaviour be tracked. Among 668 survey participants, the two largest groups were students (40%) and researchers (36%), followed by private citizens (8%), other experts (7%) and teachers (5%). Other identified user categories include journalists, civil servants, entrepreneurs and politicians. While new publications attract a considerable share of the views, there is still a relatively large interest, especially among students, in older materials. Our findings indicate that Finnish language publications are particularly important for reaching students, citizens, experts and politicians. Thus, open access to publications in national languages is vital for the local relevance and outreach of research.

This paper builds on emerging concerns with how temporality and spatiality unfold in, and order, academic evaluation practices. We unpack how the notion of 'trajectory' – a simultaneously prospective and retrospective narrative device permeating contemporary academic evaluation discourses – is mobilized within a particular evaluation site. Materials for our study are drawn from reports commissioned by Swedish universities when hiring for new professors. These texts are authored by external referees who rank and compare candidates, in this case for associate and full professorship positions in biomedicine. By using the theoretical perspective of 'narrative infrastructures' we explore how the referee reports mobilize 'trajectories' to weave together disparate bits of evidence extracted from the bylines of biomedical researchers' CVs: publication numbers, impact factors, authorship positions and 'earning power'. Our analysis finds certain resemblances across reports of what constitutes an ideal candidate's career trajectory, but none of these are completely identical. We consider how 'the trajectory' is evoked as a singularity within this genre of writing, thereby bestowing retrospectively a sense of coherence and purpose on the past performance and prospective development of careers. We discuss the implications of our findings in terms of how 'trajectorism' shapes evaluation in academic biomedicine and possibly beyond, and propose suggestions for how this dominant narrative might be challenged.

What is a scientific author? What are the different practices for making-up this elusive figure, and how do these connect? Are current modes of enacting authorship still fit for purpose and how might we imagine and enact new forms? What is understood as 'authorship' has varied over time and contexts yet is relevant across all fields of scholarship and science. This multiple figure is deeply interwoven with cognitive aspects of knowledge, such as creativity, originality, and invention, as well as with the institutional aspects of knowledge production, such as reward-systems, ownership and recognition. Authorship is also very much at the centre of ethical considerations in science and scholarship. Questions such as what is an appropriate contribution that warrants authorship, or how are authorship practices affected by increasing competition are of both practical and political importance. Moreover, authorship is linked to communication technologies and social networks: writing a scholarly letter for a print journal differs in important ways from authoring a submission on a Wikipedia page.