IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v54y2025i6s0048733325000423.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does audit-based evaluation reduce academics' creative behavior? The moderating effect of guanxi practice and population characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • You, Dingyi
  • Wen, Ke
  • Liu, Yi
  • Tang, Le

Abstract

The effect of audit-based evaluation, which is characterized by standardized quality control, on academics' creative behaviors is ambiguous in the existing literature. Based on survey data collected from 509 academics among 60 research institutes in the Chinese Academy of Sciences, this paper applies multi-level regression analysis and empirically investigates the effect of audit-based evaluation. The main findings are: Audit-based evaluation promotes creative behavior at a low level, but after exceeding a certain threshold, it exhibits a depressing effect. Such an inverse U-shaped effect is weakened and the turning point shifts to the right by increased guanxi practice. Moreover, academics at the fringe of guanxi networks, females or juniors, benefit more from audit-based evaluation. These findings unveil the mechanism through which research evaluation affects creative behavior in heterogeneous groups among academics, and provide policy-related implications to research evaluation in both China and the world.

Suggested Citation

  • You, Dingyi & Wen, Ke & Liu, Yi & Tang, Le, 2025. "Does audit-based evaluation reduce academics' creative behavior? The moderating effect of guanxi practice and population characteristics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(6).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:54:y:2025:i:6:s0048733325000423
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2025.105213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733325000423
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105213?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ju-fang Shao & Hui-yun Shen, 2012. "Research assessment and monetary rewards: the overemphasized impact factor in China," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 199-203, June.
    2. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2022. "How should evaluation be? Is a good evaluation of research also just? Towards the implementation of good evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7127-7146, December.
    3. Vincent Larivière & Chaoqun Ni & Yves Gingras & Blaise Cronin & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2013. "Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science," Nature, Nature, vol. 504(7479), pages 211-213, December.
    4. Kuniko Matsumoto & Sotaro Shibayama & Byeongwoo Kang & Masatsura Igami, 2021. "Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6891-6915, August.
    5. Estrin, Saul & Prevezer, Martha, 2011. "The role of informal institutions in corporate governance: Brazil, Russia, India, and China compared," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 33552, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Kwiek, Marek & Roszka, Wojciech, 2021. "Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    7. Li Liu & Qingguo Zhai, 2024. "Workplace guanxi and knowledge sharing of academics," Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 186-197, March.
    8. Richard F. J. Haans & Constant Pieters & Zi-Lin He, 2016. "Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1177-1195, July.
    9. Sylvia Schwaag Serger & Mats Benner & Li Liu, 2015. "Chinese university governance: Tensions and reforms," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(6), pages 871-886.
    10. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    11. Junxi Qian & Zhenjie Yuan & Jie Li & Hong Zhu, 2020. "Science Citation Index (SCI) and scientific evaluation system in China," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-4, December.
    12. Ozlem Inanc & Onur Tuncer, 2011. "The effect of academic inbreeding on scientific effectiveness," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 885-898, September.
    13. Petersen, Alexander M. & Pan, Raj K. & Pammolli, Fabio & Fortunato, Santo, 2019. "Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1855-1865.
    14. Corsi, Marcella & D’Ippoliti, Carlo & Zacchia, Giulia, 2019. "Diversity of backgrounds and ideas: The case of research evaluation in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    15. Amanda Bayer & Cecilia Elena Rouse, 2016. "Diversity in the Economics Profession: A New Attack on an Old Problem," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(4), pages 221-242, Fall.
    16. Shelly Lundberg & Jenna Stearns, 2019. "Women in Economics: Stalled Progress," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 3-22, Winter.
    17. Kirsi-Mari Kallio & Tomi J. Kallio & Giuseppe Grossi, 2017. "Performance measurement in universities: ambiguities in the use of quality versus quantity in performance indicators," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(4), pages 293-300, June.
    18. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
    19. Horak, Sven & Restel, Katja, 2016. "A Dynamic Typology of Informal Institutions: Learning from the Case of Guanxi," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 525-546, September.
    20. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Yi & Zhu, Guilong & Mu, Rongping, 2020. "Do research institutes benefit from their network positions in research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 94.
    21. Sarah de Rijcke & Paul F. Wouters & Alex D. Rushforth & Thomas P. Franssen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2016. "Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 161-169.
    22. Janet H. Lawrence & Sergio Celis & Molly Ott, 2014. "Is the Tenure Process Fair? What Faculty Think," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 85(2), pages 155-192, March.
    23. Chen, Chao C. & Chen, Xiao-Ping & Huang, Shengsheng, 2013. "Chinese Guanxi: An Integrative Review and New Directions for Future Research," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 167-207, March.
    24. Jeon, Daeseong & Ahn, Joon Mo & Kim, Juram & Lee, Changyong, 2022. "A doc2vec and local outlier factor approach to measuring the novelty of patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    25. Ying Guo & Xiantao Xiao, 2022. "Author-level altmetrics for the evaluation of Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 973-990, February.
    26. Wang, Yuelong & Xie, Xin & Yang, Yongbing, 2023. "Valuing research output: Evidence from a Chinese university," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    27. Fang Xu & Xiaoxuan Li, 2016. "The changing role of metrics in research institute evaluations undertaken by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-6, December.
    28. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    29. Stephen Curry, 2018. "Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: it’s time to change how we judge research," Nature, Nature, vol. 554(7691), pages 147-147, February.
    30. Zhang, Ningning & You, Dingyi & Tang, Le & Wen, Ke, 2023. "Knowledge path dependence, external connection, and radical inventions: Evidence from Chinese Academy of Sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    31. Chao C. Chen & Ya-Ru Chen & Katherine Xin, 2004. "Guanxi Practices and Trust in Management: A Procedural Justice Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 200-209, April.
    32. Koen Jonkers, 2011. "Mobility, productivity, gender and career development of Argentinean life scientists," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(5), pages 411-421, December.
    33. Jeon, Daeseong & Lee, Junyoup & Ahn, Joon Mo & Lee, Changyong, 2023. "Measuring the novelty of scientific publications: A fastText and local outlier factor approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    34. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    35. Nicolas Robinson-Garcia & Rodrigo Costas & Gabriela F & Thed N van, 2023. "Valuation regimes in academia: Researchers’ attitudes towards their diversity of activities and academic performance," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 496-514.
    36. Brandy Simula & Tracy Scott, 2020. "The Impact of Pressures to Produce on Knowledge Production and Evaluation in the Modern Academy," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-13, April.
    37. Li Tang, 2019. "Five ways China must cultivate research integrity," Nature, Nature, vol. 575(7784), pages 589-591, November.
    38. Siying Li & Huawei Shen & Peng Bao & Xueqi Cheng, 2021. "$$h_u$$ h u -index: a unified index to quantify individuals across disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3209-3226, April.
    39. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2024. "Reluctance to pursue breakthrough research: A signaling explanation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    40. Alfonso Ávila-Robinson & Cristian Mejia & Shintaro Sengoku, 2021. "Are bibliometric measures consistent with scientists’ perceptions? The case of interdisciplinarity in research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7477-7502, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Funk, Patricia & Iriberri, Nagore & Savio, Giulia, 2024. "Does scarcity of female instructors create demand for diversity among students? Evidence from an M-Turk experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Wang, Zhongyi & Zhang, Haoxuan & Chen, Jiangping & Chen, Haihua, 2024. "An effective framework for measuring the novelty of scientific articles through integrated topic modeling and cloud model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    3. Piera Bello & Alessandra Casarico & Debora Nozza, 2023. "Research Similarity and Women in Academia," CESifo Working Paper Series 10657, CESifo.
    4. Kim, Lanu & Smith, Daniel Scott & Hofstra, Bas & McFarland, Daniel A., 2022. "Gendered knowledge in fields and academic careers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    5. Sandra Rousseau & Ronald Rousseau, 2021. "Bibliometric Techniques And Their Use In Business And Economics Research," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1428-1451, December.
    6. Yuanyuan Zhou & Jiaojiao Ji, 2025. "The impact of scientific articles on Chinese social media: examining its correlation with novelty and citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(8), pages 4591-4619, August.
    7. Chu, Zhaofang & Feng, Bo & Lai, Fujun, 2018. "Logistics service innovation by third party logistics providers in China: Aligning guanxi and organizational structure," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 291-307.
    8. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    9. Verónica Amarante & Marisa Bucheli & Mar�a In�s Moraes & Tatiana P�rez, 2021. "Women in Research in Economics in Uruguay," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, vol. 40(84), pages 763-790.
    10. repec:osf:socarx:w34pr_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Rodrigo Dorantes-Gilardi & Aurora A. Ramírez-Álvarez & Diana Terrazas-Santamaría, 2023. "Is there a differentiated gender effect of collaboration with super-cited authors? Evidence from junior researchers in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2317-2336, April.
    12. Sierminska, Eva & Oaxaca, Ronald L., 2022. "Gender differences in economics PhD field specializations with correlated choices," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    13. Baltrunaite, Audinga & Casarico, Alessandra & Rizzica, Lucia, 2022. "Women in economics: the role of gendered references at entry in the profession," CEPR Discussion Papers 17474, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Zhang, Ming-Ze & Wang, Tang-Rong & Lyu, Peng-Hui & Chen, Qi-Mei & Li, Ze-Xia & Ngai, Eric W.T., 2024. "Impact of gender composition of academic teams on disruptive output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    15. Todd Pugatch & Elizabeth Schroeder, 2021. "Promoting Female Interest in Economics: Limits to Nudges," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 123-127, May.
    16. Graziella Bertocchi & Luca Bonacini & Marina Murat, 2023. "Adams and Eves: High school math and the gender gap in Economics majors," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 61(4), pages 798-817, October.
    17. Peter Andre & Armin Falk, 2021. "What’s Worth Knowing? Economists’ Opinions about Economics," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 102, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    18. Josep Maria Argilés-Bosch & Yuliya Kasperskaya & Josep Garcia-Blandon & Diego Ravenda, 2025. "The interplay of author and editor gender in acceptance delays: evidence from accounting journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1939-1965, March.
    19. Enrico Nano & Ugo Panizza & Martina Viarengo, 2021. "A Generation of Italian Economists," IHEID Working Papers 08-2021, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies.
    20. J. Ignacio Conde-Ruiz & Juan José Ganuza & Manu Garcia & Luis A. Puch, 2021. "Gender distribution across topics in Top 5 economics journals: A machine learning approach," Economics Working Papers 1771, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    21. Asier Minondo, 2020. "Who presents and where? An analysis of research seminars in US economics departments," Papers 2001.10561, arXiv.org, revised May 2020.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:54:y:2025:i:6:s0048733325000423. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.