Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):199-225 (2016)

Abstract
Criteria for the evaluation of most scholars’ work have recently received wider attention due to high-profile cases of scientific misconduct which are perceived to be linked to these criteria. However, in the competition for career advancement and funding opportunities almost all scholars are subjected to the same criteria. Therefore these evaluation criteria act as ‘switchmen’, determining the tracks along which scholarly work is pushed by the dynamic interplay of interests of both scholars and their institutions. Currently one of the most important criteria is the impact of publications. In this research, the extent to which publish or perish, a long standing evaluation criterion, led to scientific misconduct is examined briefly. After this the strive for high impact publications will be examined, firstly by identifying the period in which this became an important evaluation criterion, secondly by looking at variables contributing to the impact of scholarly papers by means of a non-structured literature study, and lastly by combining these data into a quantitative analysis.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-015-9638-0
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,848
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Relevance, Acceptability, and Sufficiency Today.J. Blair - 2007 - Anthropology and Philosophy 8 (1-2):33-48.
Criteria and Evaluation of Cognitive Theories.Petros A. M. Gelepithis - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):607-609.
FOCUS: Sex‐Discrimination in Job Evaluation.Jeanne Bruijn - 1993 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 2 (1):25-29.
El tiempo en San Agustín.Gemma Muñoz-Alonso López - 1989 - Anales Del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía 7:37-42.
Reflexión sobre «La antropología fenomenológica de M. Merleau-Ponty.Gemma Muñoz-Alonso López - 1996 - Anales Del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía 13 (S1):65-73.
Whither Thou Goest, Philosophy of Education ….Matthew J. Hayden - 2014 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 33 (6):667-672.
Criteria for Authorship in Bioethics.David B. Resnik & Zubin Master - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (10):17 - 21.
On "On What There Is".Jody Azzouni - 1998 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79 (1):1-18.
On "on What There Is".Jody Azzouni - 1998 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79 (1):1–18.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-01-25

Total views
2 ( #1,386,644 of 2,432,819 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #294,235 of 2,432,819 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes