IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i4d10.1007_s11192-025-05282-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Closing the door behind: metric-based research evaluation systems and gatekeeping towards young researchers

Author

Listed:
  • Hakan Soner Şener

    (Hacettepe University)

  • İdris Semih Kaya

    (Hacettepe University)

  • Mücella Sena Köksal

    (Hacettepe University)

  • Zehra Taşkın

    (Hacettepe University
    Adam Mickiewicz University)

Abstract

The competitive nature of academia has led to the establishment of rigorous criteria by decision-makers for evaluating researchers’ performances. Title and tenure systems have been implemented based on these specific criteria. This study aims to examine how these criteria are fulfilled, identify which groups of researchers are required to meet these performance indicators, and assess the extent to which they do so. Data were collected from 98 academics in the field of library and information science via the Web of Science and the main academic platform of the Council of Higher Education, Turkey. A total of 1641 articles and 999 books or book chapters were subjected to analysis. The findings suggest that early-career researchers are disproportionately compelled to adhere to the “publish or perish” paradigm and are expected to meet higher performance expectations. When normalized for years of experience, the results indicate that professors exhibit the lowest publication output, while faculty members with a Ph.D. who hold the title of Associate Professor demonstrate the highest output. While this study primarily focuses on comparing the fulfillment of criteria between decision-makers and early-career researchers, future research will explore the observed inflation in book and book chapter publications within the same field.

Suggested Citation

  • Hakan Soner Şener & İdris Semih Kaya & Mücella Sena Köksal & Zehra Taşkın, 2025. "Closing the door behind: metric-based research evaluation systems and gatekeeping towards young researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(4), pages 2291-2310, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05282-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05282-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05282-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-025-05282-6?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. Howard D. White & Sebastian K. Boell & Hairong Yu & Mari Davis & Concepción S. Wilson & Fletcher T.H. Cole, 2009. "Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(6), pages 1083-1096, June.
    2. Zehra Taşkın & Abdülkadir Taşkın & Güleda Doğan & Emanuel Kulczycki, 2022. "Factors affecting time to publication in information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7499-7515, December.
    3. Heng Huang & Donghua Zhu & Xuefeng Wang, 2022. "Evaluating scientific impact of publications: combining citation polarity and purpose," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5257-5281, September.
    4. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    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. Tian, Dan & Hu, Xiao & Qian, Yuchen & Li, Jiang, 2024. "Exploring the scientific impact of negative results," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    2. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-García & Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2014. "Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2113-2127, March.
    3. Stefan, Matthias & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Sutter, Matthias & Walzl, Markus, 2023. "Monetary and social incentives in multi-tasking: The ranking substitution effect," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    4. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    5. Dell'Anno, Roberto & Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea, 2020. "A “Trojan Horse” in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    6. Qingqing Zhou & Chengzhi Zhang, 2020. "Evaluating wider impacts of books via fine-grained mining on citation literatures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1923-1948, December.
    7. Ülle Must, 2012. "Alone or together: examples from history research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 527-537, May.
    8. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    9. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    10. Daiping Wang & Wolfgang Forstmeier & Mihai Valcu & Niels J Dingemanse & Martin Bulla & Christiaan Both & Renée A Duckworth & Lynna Marie Kiere & Patrik Karell & Tomáš Albrecht & Bart Kempenaers, 2019. "Scrutinizing assortative mating in birds," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-20, February.
    11. Tausch, Arno, 2018. "The Market Power of Global Scientific Publishing Companies in the Age of Globalization. An Analysis Based on the OCLC Worldcat," MPRA Paper 87442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Fan Qi & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1101-1123, February.
    13. Martin Grančay & Jolita Vveinhardt & Ērika Šumilo, 2017. "Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1813-1837, June.
    14. Ellen van Wilgenburg & Mark A Elgar, 2013. "Confirmation Bias in Studies of Nestmate Recognition: A Cautionary Note for Research into the Behaviour of Animals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, January.
    15. Marlene Stoll & Martin Kerwer & Klaus Lieb & Anita Chasiotis, 2022. "Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-28, June.
    16. Ioan Ianoş & Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor, 2020. "An Overview of the Dynamics of Relative Research Performance in Central-Eastern Europe Using a Ranking-Based Analysis Derived from SCImago Data," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-25, July.
    17. Onur Öztürk & Zehra Taşkın, 2024. "How metric-based performance evaluation systems fuel the growth of questionable publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(5), pages 2729-2748, May.
    18. Mathis, Bryan & Ohniwa, Ryosuke L., 2024. "Trends in emerging topics generation across countries in life science and medicine," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    19. Fabo, Brian & Jančoková, Martina & Kempf, Elisabeth & Pástor, Ľuboš, 2021. "Fifty shades of QE: Comparing findings of central bankers and academics," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-20.
    20. Frank Jensen & Niels Vestergaard & Hans Frost, 1999. "Asymmetrisk information og regulering af forurening," Working Papers 1/99, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.

    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:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05282-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.