A Note on the Empirical Futility of Labor-Intensive Scoring Permutations for Assessing Scholarly Productivity: Implications for Research, Promotion/Tenure, and Mentoring

Creator

Christine Hanish
John J. Horan
Bethanne Keen
Ginger Clark

Files

Publisher

Arizona State University, University of South Florida

Publication Date

August 1998

Abstract

The measurement of scholarly productivity is embroiled in a controversy concerning the differential crediting of coauthors. Some researchers assign equivalent shares to each coauthor; others employ weighting systems based on authorship order. Horan and his colleagues use simple publication totals, arguing that the psychometric properties of labor-intensive alternatives are unknown, and relevant ethical guidelines for including coauthors are neither widely understood nor consistently followed. ...

Keywords

Productivity

Extent

11

Volume

6

Issue

15

Language

English

Media Type

Journals (Periodicals)

Format

Digital Only

Identifier

E11-00106

Creative Commons

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Recommended Citation

Hanish, Christine; Horan, John J.; Keen, Bethanne; and Clark, Ginger, "A Note on the Empirical Futility of Labor-Intensive Scoring Permutations for Assessing Scholarly Productivity: Implications for Research, Promotion/Tenure, and Mentoring" (1998). Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA). 19.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/usf_EPAA/19