Presentation to doctoral symposium,
Syracuse University
April 26, 2006
"Academic Productivity – What is it?
What Causes it? How is it Achieved?
Barry Bozeman
Regents Professor of Public Policy
Georgia Tech
After August 1:
Crenshaw Professor of Public Policy
University of Georgia
Ways of Thinking about Academic
Productivity

Output: Publications and ‘knowledge outputs’
(e.g. patents, technical assistance)

Impact: Impacts of knowledge outputs
(Scholarly and practitioner)

RVM Approach: “Scientific and Technical
Human Capital” (career trajectories and field
changes)
What is “Scientific and Technical
Human Capital” (S&THC)?

–
S&THC is the amalgamation of:
1.
The individual’s endowments and abilities–
Formal training
–
Craft knowledge and tacit knowledge
–
Cognitive skills
–
Intelligence
–
Creativity
(i.e. capacity to produce knowledge)
Source: B. Bozeman, J. Dietz and M. Gaughan (2001) “Scientific and technical
human capital,” International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 7/8, 2001, 716-740
What is “Scientific and Technical
Human Capital” (S&THC)?
And…,
2. Social ties and network linkages

Formal social linkages (e.g. professional
Association relations)

–
Informal linkages (e.g. acquaintances,
professional friends)
(i.e. capacity to disseminate and utilize
knowledge)
Scientific and Technical Human
Capital Mapping: The Life Cycle
Cognitive
Skills
Cognitive
Skills
Cognitive
Skills
Knowledge
Knowledge
Knowledge
Craft Skills
Craft Skills
Craft Skills
Team Member (t - 1)
Team Member (t)
Team Member (t + 1)
Legend
Weak Tie
Strong Tie
Barry Bozeman, 1999
Conventional academic productivity
models





Focus on publications, quantity and
sometimes quality
Use citation analysis and bibliometric
approaches (impact studies)
Sometimes focus on life cycle
Most studies focused on production of
refereed articles
Typical independent variables: gender,
age and tenure, field, collaboration
patterns, education
Technical issues






Normal or fractional count?
Author order effects
Negative citations and literature
reviews, self-citations
Citations in books
Name distinctiveness
Field/Discipline citation propensities
Review of Academic Productivity
Studies
Study
Dependent
Variables
Disciplines
and Fields
Results
Wanner, et
al. (1981)
Article and Book
Counts
(Department)
Social sciences,
Physical sciences publish
physical sciences more and have very
different norms, not
comparable with social
sciences
Clemente
(1973)
Article counts
(Individual)
Physical
sciences
Best predictors: age at first
publication; having
published before Ph.D.
Keith and
Babchuk
Department
Rankings
Sociology
Past reputation much more
important that current
productivity
Pfeffer and
Langdon
(1993)
Article counts
(Department)
Social sciences,
The higher the wage
physical sciences dispersion in department,
the lower the productivity
Review of Academic Productivity Studies
(continued)
Study
Dependent
Variables
Disciplines
and Fields
Results
Fox (1989)
Individual
publication
counts
Sociology
High rejection rates
function of disciplinary
fragmentation (Kuhn)
Lee and
Bozeman
(2005)
Individual
publication
counts
Physical
sciences and
engineering
Collaboration positive for
“normal count,” neutral for
“fractional count”; women
have fewer collaborators
Varian
(1998)
Individual
publication
counts
Physical
sciences and
engineering
Women publish 50-80% as
as many articles as men, on
average (gap narrowing; no
difference in economics)
Armstrong
(1983)
Individual
publication
counts
Physical and
social sciences
Best predictor: quality of
undergraduate degree
(doctoral degree secondary)
Review of Academic Productivity Studies
(continued)
Study
Dependent
Variables
Disciplines
and Fields
Results
Feldt, 1986
Grants and
publications
Physical
sciences
Women receive fewer
grants (publish less)
Gaughan
and
Bozeman,
2002
Grants and
publications
Physical
sciences
Women receive about same
number of grants, lower
amounts, until 5th grant (bipolar distribution
Xie and
Aiken
Article
publications
Physical
sciences
Women produce less
because more likely junior
faculty (hired more recently)
Dietz (2004) Article
publications
Physical
sciences
Research Center affiliates
more productive
Submitting to Journals
First- what are you hoping to achieve?


Intellectual impact, force of ideas
Career enhancement






Acquire or improve job
Develop reputation
Move to a new or different field
Tenure trajectory
Develop network ties
Impact on practitioners or policy
What are the mechanics of
submission?



Read the journal requirements.
Don’t worry initially about formatting.
Don’t write a long letter (or email).



e.g. “Dear Dr. Schmidlap, I would like to submit the enclosed
paper, entitled “A Preliminary Analysis of Libertarian Voting
Patterns in Butts County, Georgia, 1975-1976,” for possible
publication in the Journal of Rural Voting Behavior. Thank you for
considering my submission.
Prepare to wait.
Prepare (at best) to get harsh criticism and an R&R. This is a
GOOD letter:

e.g. Dear Ms. Student, I am afraid the referees have concluded
that your paper is not in its present form suitable for publication
in JRVB. However, we will see a revised version. I cannot
promise you a revised version will result in publication.
What are the mechanics of
publication?







If you receive an R&R the odds are about 85% that your
paper will be published (somewhat less at the most
competitive journals).
You may have to revise more than once.
When you revise, pay attention first to the editor, then
the referees. But also don’t relent on points that will
make the paper worse.
After submission it will take from two months to two
years for publication.
You will usually get a chance to copy edit the final proof.
You will usually get 50 or so free reprints to distribute
(policies vary on electronic copies to distribute).
You will either co-own or not own the rights to the
reproduction of your article.
Norms you may not know
about





You cannot submit a paper to more than one
journal at the same time.
When your paper is rejected, it is a good
idea to revise before sending out again (you
may get the same referees).
Acknowledge anyone who has helped you
in any way. Generosity costs you nothing.
Some journals permit you (or even prefer)
that you nominate a few reviewers for your
submission.
Review is generally, but not always, “double
Different Career Stages Need
Different Strategies







Graduate student
Ph.D. non-academic
Ph.D. with no tenure-track job
Ph.D. beginning a tenure track job
Junior faculty with tenure coming up soon
Senior faculty, moderate productivity
Senior faculty, academic star or star aspirant
If you are a student…



All publications are good publications.
A publication in a journal shows activity
and distances you from most students.
Regardless of journal, the work signals
your career interests
Conference presentations and book
reviews “count” (but they won’t later)
If you are not a student, remember
the following sober facts:
1.
2.
3.
The median number of citations for a
paper published in a social science
academic journal is zero.
Some journals, including ones you
may have heard of, give you a
miniscule chance of ever having your
article cited.
Why worry about citations?
Total Citations in 2002:
Selected Journals
Journal
Citations
Amer. J. Political Sci.
5060
Adm Sci. Q.
4713
Hum Rel.
1909
Res Policy
1646
Pub Adm Rev
922
Scientometrics
769
Ev. Prog. Planning
468
J. Policy Analysis Mgt.
421
Sci, Tech, Hum Values
396
Int. J. Tech. Mgt.
318
Pol. St. J.
236
Adm&Soc
173
Issues S&T
145
ARPA
103
J. Per. Soc. Psy.: 23,936
Soc Theory & Meth: 2
Policy/PA Journal Impact Factors (2004)
Calculation for journal impact factor (excludes selfcitations).
A= total cites in 1992, B= 1992 cites to articles published in
1990-91 (this is a subset of A), C= number of articles
published in 1990-91D= B/C = 1992 impact factor.
The impact factor is useful in clarifying the significance of absolute (or
total) citation frequencies. It eliminates some of the bias of such counts
which favor large journals over small ones, or frequently issued journals
over less frequently issued ones, and of older journals over newer ones.
Particularly in the latter case such journals have a larger citable body of
literature than smaller or younger journals. All things being equal, the larger
the number of previously published articles, the more often a journal will be
cited.
Impact Factors for familiar
journals
Journal: High Performers
Factor
Journals: Below the
Mendoza Line
Factor
Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.
2.744
Econ. Dev. Q.
.460
J. Pol. Econ.
2.622
Public Choice
.401
Amer. J. Pol. Sci.
1.894
Public Interest
.276
Amer. Econ. Rev.
1.655
Pol. St. J.
.262
Research Policy
1.536
Austr. J. P.A.
.224
JPAM
1.240
Int. Rev. Adm. Sci.
.246
Pub. Adm. (UK)
1.139
Adm. & Soc.
.232
J. Amer. Plan. Assoc.
.911
Pub. Per. Mgt.
.192
JPART
.887
Can. Pub. Adm.
.156
PAR
.861
Policy Sci.
. 576
Pub. Adm. Dev.
.534
Amer. Rev. PA
.513
Journal prestige: How
important?



Often much more difficult to get published in
“mainstream” and disciplinary journals
(rejection rates hover around 95%).
Sometimes impact factors of “prestige
journals” or not the highest, but prestige has
its own currency (showing you can jump a
high bar).
Even if no more citations or readers, may
enhance your status as “gatekeeper.”
What about less prestigious
journals?

Divide into three categories:




A. Someone is likely to read the journal and cite
you
B. It is possible, but unlikely, that someone will
read and cite you
C. Dream on.
Lesson: Take care with the “B” category (the
most populated)- some have relatively high
rejection rates, require many changes, but don’t
have much impact.
What about “invitations to
submit?” and special issues

Distinguish among “casting calls,” editor
desperation and actual opportunity.
 Are the invitations directed to you
specifically?
 Do you have some obvious substantive
or expertise advantage?
 Are invitations focused on a particular
paper of yours?
 Does the person inviting you know you
personally?
Scenario: you are seeking academic
impact, but you are currently an “unknown”



Regardless of journal publication,
consider working with someone who is
NOT an unknown (Matthew Effects be
damned).
Regardless of journal quality, begin
thinking about journal clusters. Do not
spread your intellectual seed to thin.
Regardless of journal quality, work to
disseminate your publications
Scenario: you are seeking academic
impact, but you are currently an “unknown”
(continued)





Know the impact factor of your journal set.
Regardless of the impact factor, know the
substantive focus of your journal. Don’t put a
good paper in a good journal that does not
deal with your topic.
Understand the probabilities of publication.
Think about tiers (didn’t make the first tier
journal, what is the next one?)
Get pre-submission criticism. If very
positive, do not undervalue your paper.
Honing in…

OK, now that you have identified the content
area and the prestige level (impact factor) of
the target journals, what are some other
cues you may wish to consider in finalizing
your decision?






Who is the editor? What is the editor’s role?
Who is on the editorial board?
Who has been publishing in the journal (they
will be your reviewers!)
What is the characteristic set of methods used in
published papers?
Length?
Can you determine if there is a backlog?
The journal as “sign”


The journals you publish in will shape your
professional identify. For example,
Organization Studies, Organizational
Dynamics, and Academy of Management
Journal cover many of the same topics but
in completely different ways.
Journals signify different cognitive
emphases: creativity, analytical ability,
modeling, methods, theory, values. Which
of these attributes do you wish to advertise?
And now- The public
administration studies
Questionnaire
Studies
Reputational Studies
Surveyed the top 89 public administration scholars
(nominated by leaders of five organizations) and asked
them to rank characteristics related to their success.
Public Administration Review • January/February 2004, Vol. 64, No. 1
Adapted from Schroeder, et al., 2004
Factors Ranked High (Top 15)
15: Winning awards
14: Jointly-authored articles
13: Leadership in organizations
12: Faculty mentors in Ph.D. program
11: Grants and research support
10: Seizing research opportunities
9: Jointly-authored books
8: Quality (not rank) of Ph.D. program
7: Cutting Edge Research Topics
6: Presenting scholarly papers
5: Single-authored articles
4: Journal editor
3: Timing/luck
2: Single-authored books
1: Hard Work
M
H
M
L
H
H
H
M
M
L
H
H
M
H
M
(Bozeman Rank)
H: High Importance; M: Medium; L: Low
Compared reputation ratings of programs vs. numbers of publications
in top 20 journals (did NOT take department size into account)
Public Administration Review, 1981
Another Measure: The productivity of research Graduates
(Adams, Public Administration Review, 1996)
(Adams, Public Administration Review, 1996)
Faculty Productivity (not per
capita)
Individual Productivity:
Guidelines that have worked for me





Do not spend much time scheming or griping- work
hard and do research you enjoy
Carefully evaluate collaborators and collaboration
opportunities
Don’t be exploited by lazy or mediocre colleagues
Understand the transactions costs of doctoral
student mentoring (and do it because it is important,
not because it is productive)
Set for yourself reasonable, measurable goals each
year
More productivity ideas:






Avoid meetings unless they are vital or research
related or fun
Cultivate solitude (the ability to be at your work
desk)
Don’t waste time with zero impact journals
Track your citations and know how to interpret them
If you are not surrounded by a “productivity culture,”
either make your own (networks) or get a new job
Determine if you enjoy research (“sacred spark”)
and, if you do not, invest in other productive
activities (e.g. quality teaching)
Last…
Don’t spend too much time in seminars
listening to other’s ideas!
(But thanks for coming).

More info:
www.rvm.gatech.edu