In the quest for higher rankings, the research system within Australian universities can reward quantity over quality.
That’s the opinion of the nation’s chief scientist, Dr Cathy Foley, who says the way the research success of individuals and institutions is measured is not fit for purpose. Instead, she says, it has reinforced a “publish or perish” culture.
Dr Foley made her comments ahead of today’s release of a wide-ranging report on the state of research assessment in Australia. It reveals some researchers are gaming the system to benefit from loopholes. In some cases, the report shows, outright misconduct is occurring.
Dr Foley said evaluating researchers tends to focus on how many publications they have, as well as the number of citations and journal status, plus grant funding round success.
“While there are good reasons for this, the system has evolved to be self-perpetuating, reinforce the status quo, and make it more difficult for women and other groups to flourish in research careers,” she said.
“It has given rise to an unhelpful nexus between universities, publishers, funders and global ranking agencies, as universities and researchers chase higher international rankings through publication numbers and prestigious journals and rankings take on an outsize level of importance.”
Researchers suffer ‘publication count’ pressures
Researchers reported feeling pressure to focus on established areas to increase their publication count, within a system that prioritises easily publishable research above deeper investigative research.
Senior staff and supervisors help foster the pervasive “publish or perish” culture, the report shows, with evidence that funders actively encourage the shift towards volume over quality.
The approach gives participating universities an advantage in global rankings systems, such as the Times Higher Education rankings because of the way those ranking methodologies value high research output.
As a result, the report says, the pursuit of higher rankings on both an individual and institution level is creating a risk-averse culture in which new discoveries and groundbreaking research opportunities are limited.
It also drives gaming of the system – including filling grant applications with “trivial” publications to appear more productive. That gaming also includes misconduct, such as fabricating information or deliberate misattribution of research outcomes.
Changing the definition of success
At one unnamed university, the ‘definition of success’ indicator meant having 1.2-1.5 times more publications than the average for the discipline. The report said this measurement criteria can lead to senior researchers pressuring junior colleagues to include them as co-authors on papers.
Survey participants were primarily university-based, with 61 per cent stating they had considered leaving the research sector due to funding pressures and the ability to enjoy greater work-life balance.
This feeling was higher among women (65 per cent compared with 55 per cent of men) and among non-binary and other gender respondents (82 per cent).
Report author Professor Kevin McConkey, from the Australian Council of Learned Academies, said the paper highlighted that a narrow approach to chase reward and recognition by focusing on the short-term and by playing it safe, was not conducive to achieving quality research.
Chief executive at Universities Australia, Catriona Jackson, said she welcomed the report and “serious examination of how we assess research to ensure that processes are fit for purpose”.
