Advertisement

Corporate Culture in Academia and The Current Standards of Research Appraisal

  • Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
Chapter
  • 323 Downloads

Abstract

Along with the advent of the scientist-bureaucrat has arrived the rise of academic capitalism; in fact, one aspect is a reflection of the other. It should not be surprising that sooner or later money becomes one main objective and product of scholastic development. We only have to remember that long, long time ago, lucrative greed entered even the most sacrosanct activities, like the Olympic games, where Greek athletes went from competing for purely sportive reasons to compete for the money paid by the Roman conquerors of Greece. Money talks, they say. It has always been talking, except perhaps in very ancient times when hunting-gathering kept humans very busy. Going back to science, this situation has resulted in the emergence of new standards by which scientists are judged. It is fair to evaluate scientists’ activities from time to time, but in modern times the appraisal of research has reached such proportions that inflicts more limitations —as if there were few already— to creativity, to the basic activity of scientists: innovative thinking.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Hicks et al., Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520, 429–431 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1038/520429aADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    P. Dong et al., The impact factor revisited. Biomedical Digital Libraries 2, 7 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-2-7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Adler, J. Ewing, P. Taylor, Citation statistics. Statistical Science 24(1), 1–14 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS285MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Stephan, R. Veugelers, J. Wang, Blinkered by bibliometrics. Nature 544, 411–412 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1038/544411aADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. J. de Solla Price (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3683.510
  7. 7.
    M.E. Falagas, V.G. Alexiou, The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 56, 223 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Brembs, K. Button, M. Munafò, Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7, 291 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Greene, The demise of the lone author. Nature 450, 1165 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1038/4501165aADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ronin InstituteNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations