Impact-oriented science policies and scientific publication practices: The case of life sciences in Japan

The modern science system relies on intense evaluation of scientific publication, in which scientific impact is highly emphasized, but its contribution to the progress of science has been controversial. Focusing on two aspects of the science system, resource allocation and academic career design, this study explores whether these policies, presumably aiming at high-impact research, actually achieve the goal. Drawing on in-depth interviews and econometric analyses of Japanese biology professors, this study first shows that merit-based resource allocation can result in biased resource allocation, and that excessive resource concentration can facilitate low-impact publications. Second, results show that a lack of mobility, in particular inbreeding, increases low-impact publications, while international mobility decreases it. The latter effect is found to be mediated by fewer publications in low-impact journals, and thus, internationally mobile academics seem to decide the publication destination more strategically.

[1]  Paul A. David,et al.  Understanding the emergence of 'open science' institutions: functionalist economics in historical context , 2004 .

[2]  A. Agrawal,et al.  NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES BRAIN DRAIN OR BRAIN BANK? THE IMPACT OF SKILLED EMIGRATION ON POOR-COUNTRY INNOVATION , 2008 .

[3]  Laura Cruz-Castro,et al.  Mobility versus job stability: Assessing tenure and productivity outcomes , 2010 .

[4]  E. Fong,et al.  Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing , 2012, Science.

[5]  Michael D. Gordon.  How Authors Select Journals: A Test of the Reward Maximization Model of Submission Behaviour , 1984 .

[6]  Sotaro Shibayama,et al.  Impact of Inbreeding on Scientific Productivity: A Case Study of a Japanese University Department , 2014 .

[7]  Francis Narin,et al.  Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers , 1991, Scientometrics.

[8]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Foreign-born scientists: mobility patterns for 16 countries , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[9]  W. Broad.  The publishing game: getting more for less. , 1981, Science.

[10]  Robert D. Tollison,et al.  Dry Holes in Economic Research , 2003 .

[11]  Brian A. Jacob,et al.  The Impact of NIH Postdoctoral Training Grants on Scientific Productivity. , 2011, Research policy.

[12]  Eric Hand,et al.  222 NIH grants: 22 researchers , 2008, Nature.

[13]  R. Sousa.  Research Funding: Less Should Be More , 2008, Science.

[14]  Cornelia Lawson,et al.  International research visits and careers: An analysis of bioscience academics in Japan , 2015 .

[15]  D. Clawson.  Tenure and the Future of the University , 2009, Science.

[16]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods , 2005, Scientometrics.

[17]  Eugenie Samuel Reich,et al.  Science publishing: The golden club , 2013, Nature.

[18]  D. Ruths,et al.  Flows of Research Manuscripts Among Scientific Journals Reveal Hidden Submission Patterns , 2012, Science.

[19]  Onur Tuncer,et al.  The effect of academic inbreeding on scientific effectiveness , 2011, Scientometrics.

[20]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[21]  Peter Weingart,et al.  Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? , 2005, Scientometrics.

[22]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[23]  J. Bohannon.  Who's afraid of peer review? , 2013, Science.

[24]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequencesfor international comparisons of national research performance , 2001, Scientometrics.

[25]  Elinor G. Barber,et al.  The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity: A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science , 2004 .

[26]  David Card,et al.  Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania , 1993 .

[27]  Aldo Geuna,et al.  Global mobility of research scientists : the economics of who goes where and why , 2015 .

[28]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment , 2013 .

[29]  David J. Currie,et al.  Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding , 2013, PloS one.

[30]  L. Butler,et al.  Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts , 2003 .

[31]  D. Christakis,et al.  Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? , 2003, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[32]  Michael H. MacRoberts,et al.  Problems of citation analysis , 1996, Scientometrics.

[33]  W. Hagstrom.  Competition in Science , 1974 .

[34]  Yudhijit Bhattacharjee,et al.  Citation impact. Saudi universities offer cash in exchange for academic prestige. , 2011, Science.

[35]  Teresa A. Sullivan,et al.  Sociology of Science , 1975 .

[36]  Dangzhi Zhao,et al.  Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field , 2010, Scientometrics.

[37]  Hugo Horta,et al.  Navel Gazing: Academic Inbreeding and Scientific Productivity , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[38]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior , 2008, J. Documentation.

[39]  E. Garfield.  Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.

[40]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  The mover’s advantage: The superior performance of migrant scientists , 2014 .

[41]  Sotaro Shibayama,et al.  Distribution of academic research funds: a case of Japanese national research grant , 2011, Scientometrics.

[42]  E Frank,et al.  Authors' criteria for selecting journals. , 1994, JAMA.

[43]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[44]  Minghua Zhang,et al.  A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature , 2012, PloS one.

[45]  Jeffrey Mervis.  Funding. Just one proposal per year, please, NSF tells astronomers. , 2014, Science.

[46]  D. Fanelli.  Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data , 2010, PloS one.

[47]  D. Hicks.  Performance-based university research funding systems , 2012 .

[48]  G. Tappeiner,et al.  The Iron Law of Important Articles , 1991 .

[49]  David Cyranoski,et al.  Education: The PhD factory , 2011, Nature.

[50]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[51]  D. Hamermesh,et al.  Reputation and Earnings: The Roles of Quality and Quantity in Academe , 2012 .

[52]  B. Martin,et al.  University Research Evaluation and Funding: An International Comparison , 2003 .

[53]  C. McCulloch,et al.  NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease , 2011, PloS one.

[54]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

[55]  Stefano Horst Baruffaldi,et al.  Return mobility and scientific productivity of researchers working abroad: The role of home country linkages , 2012 .

[56]  Per Ottar Seglen,et al.  The skewness of science , 1992 .

[57]  Robert J. W. Tijssen,et al.  Discarding the ‘basic science-applied science’ dichotomy: A knowledge utilization triangle classification system of research journals , 2010 .

[58]  Paula E. Stephan.  How Economics Shapes Science , 2012 .

[59]  Gustavo Crespi,et al.  An empirical study of scientific production: A cross country analysis, 1981-2002 , 2008 .

[60]  R. Kneller.  Prospective And Retrospective Evaluation Systems In Context: Insights From Japan , 2007 .

[61]  Brian C. Martinson,et al.  The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships , 2007, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[62]  Hugo Horta,et al.  Academic inbreeding: exploring its characteristics and rationale in Japanese universities using a qualitative perspective , 2011 .

[63]  J. R. Cole,et al.  The Ortega Hypothesis , 1972, Science.

[64]  Sara Rockwell.  The FDP Faculty Burden Survey. , 2009, Research management review.

[65]  Francis Narin,et al.  Bibliometric performance measures , 1996, Scientometrics.

[66]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Comparison of peer and citation assessment of the influence of scientific journals , 1980, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[67]  S. Redner.  How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution , 1998, cond-mat/9804163.