, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 341–362 | Cite as

The ‘Economy of Memory’: Publications, Citations, and the Paradox of Effective Research Governance



More recent advancements in digital technologies have significantly alleviated the dissemination of new scientific ideas as well as the storing, searching and retrieval of large amounts of published research findings. While not denying the benefits of this novel ‘economy of memory,’ this paper endeavors to shed light on the ways in which the use of digital technologies may be linked to a distortion of the system of formal publications that facilitates the effective dissemination and collaborative building of scientific knowledge. Through combining three different strands of discussion that are often left separate – those pertaining to the cognitive effects of new technological memory systems, those pertaining to citation and publishing practices, and those regarding the effects of formalizing modes of research governance – it is also shown that this distortion is not merely a consequence of technological developments alone. Rather, such a distortion is inseparable from and potentially aggravated by the spreading of increasingly dysfunctional, formalizing research governance mechanisms. It is argued that these mechanisms run the risk of fostering the proliferation of knowledge practices that are characterized by an increasing degree of superficiality as well as the strategic publication of research that is of a decreasing degree of originality. If left unaddressed, this may pose a serious threat to the efficiency and effectiveness of the formal record of scientific knowledge as a tool for the dissemination of original research. By extension, this may in the long run seriously undermine the capacity of the publicly funded research system more generally.


Citation behavior Digital memory Electronic publishing Information overload Knowledge practice Redundant publication Research governance Research policy Research communication Scientific culture 



I wish to acknowledge Australian Research Council funding support for the research project ‘Knowledge Building in Schooling and Higher Education: Policy strategies and effects’ (ARC Discovery Project 2011–13, DP110102466, Chief Investigator Prof. Lyn Yates). I would also like to thank Lyn Yates as well as the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback and suggestions.


  1. Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, Andrew. 2010. Varieties of ignorance. American Sociologist 41: 174–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams, Jonathan. 2009. The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 57: 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andras, Peter. 2011. Research: Metrics, quality, and management implications. Research Evaluation 20: 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker, Katherine. 2007. The UK Research Assessment Exercise: The evolution of a national research evaluation system. Research Evaluation 16: 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnes, Barry, and Steven Shapin (eds.). 1979. The natural order: Historical studies of scientific culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Bazerman, Charles. 1981. What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 361–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bornmann, Lutz. 2011. Mimicry in science? Scientometrics 86: 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornmann, Lutz, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2006. What do citations measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation 64: 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brenner, Sydney. 1995. Loose ends. Current Biology 5: 568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler, Linda. 2003. Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy 32: 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, Linda. 2004. What happens when funding is linked to publication counts? In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems, eds. Henk F. Moed, Wolfgang Glänzel, and Ulrich Schmoch, 389–405. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Cozzens, Susan E. 1989. What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model. Scientometrics 15: 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Solla-Price, Derek J. 1986. Little science, big science …and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Donald, Merlin. 1991. Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Eichorn, Philip, and Alfred Yankauer. 1987. Do authors check their references? A Survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals. American Journal of Public Health 77: 1011–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1979. The printing press as an agent of change: Communications and cultural transformations in early modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1983. The printing revolution in early modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Enders, Walter, and Gary A. Hoover. 2004. Whose line is it? Plagiarism in economics. Journal of Economic Literature 42: 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Errami, Mounir, Zhaohui Sun, Angela C. George, Tara C. Long, Michael A. Skinner, Jonathan D. Wren, and Harold R. Garner. 2010. Identifying duplicate content using statistically improbable phrases. Bioinformatics 26: 1453–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans, James A. 2008. Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 321: 395–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Evans, James A., and Jacob Reimer. 2009. Open access and global participation in science. Science 323: 1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Evans, James A., and Andrey Rzhetsky. 2010. Machine science. Science 329: 399–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans, James T., Howard I. Nadjari, and Sherry A. Burchell. 1990. Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals. A continuing peer review problem. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1353–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gaukroger, Stephen. 2006. The emergence of a scientific culture: Science and the shaping of modernity 1210–1685. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Geuna, Aldo, and Ben R. Martin. 2003. University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva 41: 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilbert, G. Nigel. 1977. Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science 7: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. 2007. Evaluation without evaluators: The impact of funding formulae on Australian University research. In The Changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems, eds. Richard Whitley, and Jochen Gläser, 127–151. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goody, Jack. 1977. The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gusfield, Joseph. 1976. The literary rhetoric of science: Comedy and pathos in drinking driver research. American Sociological Review 41: 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harris, Roy. 1989. How does writing restructure thought? Language & Communication 9: 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Havelock, Eric A. 1982. The literate revolution in Greece and its cultural consequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hutchins, Edwin. 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hutchins, Edwin. 2001. Cognitive artifact. In The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences, eds. Robert A. Wilson, and Frank C. Keil, 126–128. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hutchins, Edwin. 2010a. Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science 2: 705–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hutchins, Edwin. 2010b. Distributed cognition. In The international encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, eds. Neil J. Smelser, and Paul B. Baltes, 2068–2072. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. Kaplan, Norman. 1965. The norms of citation behavior: Prolegomena to the footnote. American Documentation 16: 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kirsh, David. 1995. The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence 73: 31–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kirsh, David. 2000. A few thoughts on cognitive overload. Intellectia 30: 19–51.Google Scholar
  41. Kirsh, David. 2006. Distributed cognition: A methodological note. Pragmatics & Cognition 14: 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knorr, Karin D., and Dietrich W. Knorr. 1978. From scenes to scripts: On the relationship between laboratory research and published paper in science. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  43. Kostoff, Ronald N., J. Dustin Johnson, Antonio Del Rio, Louis A. Bloomfield, Michael F. Shlesinger, Guido Malpohl, and Hector D. Cortes. 2006. Duplicate publication and ‘paper inflation’ in the fractals literature. Science and Engineering Ethics 12: 543–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lariviere, Vincent, and Yves Gingras. 2010. On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980–2007). Journal of Documentation 66: 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of a scientific fact. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Lewis, Jenny, and Sandy Ross. 2011. Research funding systems in Australia, New Zealand and the UK: Policy settings and perceived effects. Policy & Politics 39: 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Long, Tara C., Mounir Errami, Angela C. George, Zhaohui Sun, and Harold R. Garner. 2009. Responding to possible plagiarism. Science 323: 1293–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marris, Emma. 2006. Should journals police scientific fraud? Nature 439: 520–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Miller, Boaz. 2009. What does it mean that PRIMES is in P? Popularization and distortion revisited. Social Studies of Science 39: 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moed, Henk F. 2005. Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Mojon-Azzi, Stefania M., Xiaoyi Jiang, Ulrich Wagner, and Daniel S. Mojon. 2004. Redundant publications in scientific ophthalmologic journals—The tip of the iceberg? Ophthalmology 111: 863–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Norman, Donald A. 1991. Cognitive artifacts. In Designing interaction: Psychology at the human–computer interface, ed. John M. Carroll, 17–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Norman, Donald A. 1993. Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  55. Persson, Olle, Wolfgang Glänzel, and Rickard Danell. 2004. Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics 60: 421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Power, Michael. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Power, Michael. 2004. Counting, control and calculation: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations 57: 765–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Power, Michael. 2005. The theory of the audit explosion. In The Oxford handbook of public management, eds. Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn, and Christopher Pollitt, 326–344. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Roig, Miguel. 2005. Re-using text from one’s own previously published papers: An exploratory study of potential self-plagiarism. Psychological Reports 97: 43–49.Google Scholar
  60. Schein, Moshe, and Rameh Paladugu. 2001. Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg? Surgery 129: 655–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schimank, Uwe. 2005. “New Public Management” and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation. Minerva 43: 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shaffer, David W., and Katherine A. Clinton. 2006. Toolforthoughts: Reexamining thinking in the digital age. Mind, Culture, and Activity 13: 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shaffer, David W., and James J. Kaput. 1999. Mathematics and virtual culture: An evolutionary perspective on technology and mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics 37: 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shannon, Claude E., and Warren Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  65. Sieber, Robert W., and Shaun Holt. 2000. Accuracy of references in five leading medical journals. Lancet 356: 1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simkin, Mikhail, and Vwani P. Roychowdhury. 2005. Stochastic modeling of citation slips. Scientometrics 62: 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sismondo, Sergio. 2009. Ghosts in the machine: Publication planning in the medical sciences. Social Studies of Science 39: 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stichweh, Rudolf. 1992. The sociology of scientific disciplines: On the genesis and stability of the disciplinary structure of modern science. Science in Context 5: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sun, Zhaohui, Mounir Errami, Tara Long, Chris Renard, Nishant Choradia, and Harold Garner. 2010. Systematic characterizations of text similarity in full text biomedical publications. PloS ONE 5: e12704. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sutton, John. 2006. Distributed cognition: Domains and dimensions. Pragmatics & Cognition 14: 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tenopir, Carol, Donald W. King, Sheri Edwards, and Wu Lei. 2009. Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. Aslib Proceedings 61: 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. von Elm, Erik, Greta Poglia, Bernhard Walder, and Martin R. Tramer. 2004. Different patterns of duplicate publication: An analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 291: 974–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weingart, Peter. 2005. Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics 62: 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Whitley, Richard. 2011. Changing governance and authority relations in the public sciences. Minerva 49(4): 359–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yearly, Steven. 1981. Textual persuasion: The role of social accounting in the construction of scientific arguments. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 409–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Graduate School of EducationUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations