IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijclma/v2y2013i3p224-235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Embracing complexity in academic performance appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Lukas Klement
  • Max C. Mosterd

Abstract

The field of bibliometrics gained momentum after the proposal of the h-index in 2005. Managerial decisions in academia increasingly rely on such metrics to facilitate performance appraisal. However, current bibliometrics are far from being accurate, and reinforce negative outcomes in the publication system, and science as a whole. An analysis of non-linear relationships of a number of misguided practices and fraud in academia illustrate the paradox in measuring academic productivity. Researchers' performance is measured through measuring self-reinforcing indicators, ignoring content and conceptual richness of research. The prevailing paradigm seems to reinforce output maximisation, not exploration and knowledge dissemination. Case studies of Diederik Stapel and Don Poldermans illustrate the potential dangers of current practice under specific conditions. Based on the evidence presented, the paper calls for approximating novelty and current impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Lukas Klement & Max C. Mosterd, 2013. "Embracing complexity in academic performance appraisal," International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(3), pages 224-235.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijclma:v:2:y:2013:i:3:p:224-235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=57552
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:ids:ijclma:v:2:y:2013:i:3:p:224-235. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=345 .

    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.