IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Are more and better indicators the solution?

  • Osterloh, Margit
  • Frey, Bruno S.

Summary We discuss Starbuck's proposal to improve decision processes in scholarly evaluation. While we agree that more variety is needed in evaluation committees, we suggest to enlist scholars from other research fields rather than people from outside academia. We disagree with the proposal that more and better indicators of research effectiveness will improve research. We argue that this even would lead to worse results than what is observed today. Attention would be deviated from the content of research, and intrinsic motivation, which is essential for good research, would be crowded out. We propose that evaluations that are based on indicators need to be pushed back. After a careful selection process, researchers need to be given the opportunity to pursue the research they consider to be fruitful.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956522109000359
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Scandinavian Journal of Management.

Volume (Year): 25 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Pages: 225-227

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:scaman:v:25:y:2009:i:2:p:225-227
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/872/description#description

Order Information: Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/872/bibliographic
Web: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/872/bibliographic

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:scaman:v:25:y:2009:i:2:p:225-227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.