Kim są najbardziej produktywni polscy naukowcy? Produktywność badawcza w niezróżnicowanym i niekonkurencyjnym systemie nauki

Main Article Content

Marek Kwiek

Abstrakt

Rosnące zainteresowanie najbardziej produktywnymi naukowcami ma swoje źródło w zainteresowaniu wysoką indywidualną produktywnością w ramach ilościowych badań nauki i polityki naukowej. Co czyni naukowca najbardziej produktywnym badawczo? W prezentowanym artykule badamy górne 10 procent polskich naukowców pod kątem produktywności i poszukujemy predyktorów przynależności do tej grupy. W każdym systemie nauki niewielki odsetek naukowców pisze większość prac i przyciąga większość cytowań – ich rozkład jest skrajnie asymetryczny. Produktywność badawcza w powiązaniu z jakością publikacji determinuje poziom otrzymywanych nagród w nauce, a niewielkie różnice talentu mogą w sposób nieproporcjonalny przekładać się na poziom osiąganego sukcesu. Procesy te prowadzą do nierówności w dostępie do zasobów (środków, ludzi, infrastruktury i czasu przeznaczonego na badania). Najbardziej produktywni polscy naukowcy badani są tutaj za pomocą analizy dwuwymiarowej – analizujemy rozkład ich czasu pracy i orientacji na rolę akademicką – i przy użyciu podejścia modelowego. Badamy prawdopodobieństwo stania się wysoce produktywnym polskim naukowcem oszacowane dzięki zastosowaniu regresji logistycznej. W ramach głównych klastrów dyscyplin akademickich niewielka produktywna mniejszość, składająca się z 10 procent naukowców, odpowiada za niemal połowę (44,7 procent) wszystkich polskich publikacji (w tym 48 procent publikacji w języku angielskim i 57,2 procent publikacji pisanych ze współautorami zagranicznymi). Średnia produktywność badawcza najbardziej produktywnych naukowców jest ponad siedmiokrotnie (7,3) razy większa od produktywności 90 procent pozostałych naukowców zatrudnionych w polskim sektorze uniwersyteckim, a pod względem publikacji pisanych we współpracy międzynarodowej jest ona 12,07 razy większa. Zaobserwowano dużą nierówność – rozkład produktywności badawczej, zarówno dla wszystkich polskich naukowców, jak i dla najbardziej produktywnych naukowców, jest skrajnie asymetryczny, z charakterystycznym, długim ogonem z prawej strony rozkładu produktywności. Grupa najbardziej produktywnych naukowców, podobnie jak grupa pozostałych, mniej produktywnych naukowców, jest silnie wewnętrznie rozwarstwiona. Na bazie dużej krajowej próby (2525 obserwacji) stworzono osobne modele regresji logistycznej dla wszystkich naukowców; naukowców reprezentujących dyscypliny nauk ścisłych, technicznych, inżynieryjnych i matematycznych (STEM); oraz dla naukowców pracujących w naukach społecznych i humanistycznych (SSH). Funkcjonowanie kadry akademickiej w ramach pokazanej „reguły 10/50”, charakterystycznej również dla licznych systemów europejskich, rodzi konsekwencje dla polityki naukowej.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Dział
Artykuły
Biogram autora

Marek Kwiek, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

MAREK KWIEK – prof. dr hab., dyrektor Centrum Studiów nad Polityką Publiczną (od 2002) i kierownik katedry UNESCO Badań Instytucjonalnych i Polityki Szkolnictwa Wyższego (od 2012) na UAM w Poznaniu. Zajmuje się ilościowymi badaniami nauki, socjologią karier akademickich i badaniami nad szkolnictwem wyższym. Jego zainteresowania naukowe koncentrują się na teoriach międzynarodowej współpracy naukowej, produktywności badawczej, stratyfikacji w nauce i badaniu globalnych elit akademickich, łącząc międzynarodowe badania ankietowe i badania bibliometryczne. Opublikował ok. 200 prac, a jego najnowsza monografia to Changing European Academics: A Comparative Studyof Social Stratification, Work Patterns and Research Productivity (Routledge 2019). Był kierownikiem w 25 międzynarodowych projektach badawczych i w ostatniej dekadzie dla swoich zespołów badawczych zdobył w formie grantów 8 mln PLN. Jest członkiem rady redakcyjnej Higher Education Quarterly, European Educational Research Journal, British Educational Research Journal oraz European Journal of Higher Education, www.cpp.amu.edu.pl.

Bibliografia

  1. Abramo, G., Cicero, T. i D’Angelo, C.A. (2013). The impact of unproductive and top researchers on overall university research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 166–175.
  2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A. i Caprasecca, A. (2009). The contribution of star scientists to overall sex differences in research productivity. Scientometrics, 81(1), 137–156.
  3. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A. i Soldatenkova, A. (2017a). An investigation on the skewness patterns and fractal nature of research productivity distributions at field and discipline level. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 324–335.
  4. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A. i Soldatenkova, A. (2017b). How long do top scientists maintain their stardom? An analysis by region, gender and discipline: Evidence from Italy. Scientometrics, 110(2), 867–877.
  5. Agarwal, R. i Ohyama, A. (2012). Industry or academia basic or applied? Career choices and earnings trajectories of scientists. Management Science, 59(4), 950–970.
  6. Agrawal, A., McHale, J. i Oettl, A. (2017). How stars matter: Recruiting and peer effects in evolutionary biology. Research Policy, 46(4), 853–867.
  7. Aguinis, H. i O’Boyle, E. (2014). Star performers in twenty-first century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 313–350.
  8. Albarrán, P., Crespo, J.A., Ortuño, I. i Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics, 88(2), 385–397.
  9. Allison, P.D. (1980). Inequality and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 10, 163–179.
  10. Allison, P.D. i Stewart, J.A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: Evidencefor accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 596–606.
  11. Antonowicz, D. (2016). Digital players in an analogue world: Higher education in Poland in the post-massification era. W: B. Jongbloed i H. Vossensteyn (red.), Access and expansion post-massification. Opportunities and barriers to further growth in higher education participation (ss. 63–81). London: Routledge.
  12. Antonowicz, D., Kwiek, M. i Westerheijden, D.F. (2017). The government response to the private sector expansion in Poland. W: H. de Boer, J. File, J. Huisman, M. Seeber, M. Vukasovic i D.F. Westerheijden (red.), Policy analysis of structural reforms in higher education (ss. 119–138). Dordrecht: Springer.
  13. Arimoto, A. (2011). Japan: Effects of Changing Governance and Management on the Academic Profession. W: W. Locke, W.K. Cummings, D. Fisher (red.), Changing Governance and Management in Higher Education. The Perspectives of the Academy (ss. 281–319). Dordrecht: Springer.
  14. Bensman, S.J. i Smolinsky, L.J. (2017). Lotka’s inverse square law of scientific productivity: Its methods and statistics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(7), 1786–1791.
  15. Bentley, P.J. (2015). Cross-country differences in publishing productivity of academics in research universities. Scientometrics, 102(1), 865–883.
  16. Bentley, P.J. i Kyvik, S. (2013). Individual differences in faculty research time allocations across 13 countries. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 329–348.
  17. Białecki, I. i Dąbrowa-Szefler, M. (2009). Polish higher education in transition: Between policy making and autonomy. W: D. Palfreyman i D.T. Tapper (red.), Structuring mass higher education: The role of elite institutions (ss. 183–197). London: Routledge.
  18. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. 4th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. Carrasco, R. i Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2014). The evolution of the scientific productivity of highly productive economists. Economic Inquiry, 52(1), 1–16.
  20. Carvalho, T. (2017). The study of the academic profession – contributions from and to the sociology of professions. Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, 3, 59–76.
  21. Cohen, L., Manion, L. i Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
  22. Cole, J.R. i Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: The Universityof Chicago Press.
  23. Cole, S. i Cole, J.R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operationof the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 32(3), 377–390.
  24. Copes, H., Khey, D.N. i Tewksbury, R. (2012). Criminology and criminal justice hit parade: Measuring academic productivity in the discipline. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23(4), 423–440.
  25. Cortés, L.M., Mora-Valencia, A. i Perote, J. (2016). The productivity of top researchers: A semi-nonparametric approach. Scientometrics, 109(2), 891–915.
  26. Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30(5), 699–714.
  27. Cummings, W.K. i Finkelstein, M.J. (2012). Scholars in the changing American academy. New contexts, new rules and new roles. Dordrecht: Springer.
  28. DiPrete, T.A. i Eirich, G.M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32(1), 271–297.
  29. Drennan, J., Clarke, M., Hyde, A. i Politis, Y. (2013). The research function of the academic profession in Europe. W: U. Teichler i E.A. Höhle (red.), The work situation of the academic profession in Europe: findings of a survey in twelve countries (ss. 109–136). Dordrecht: Springer.
  30. Finkelstein, M.J. (2006). The study of academic careers: Looking back, looking forward. W: J.C. Smart (Red.), Higher education: handbook of theory and research (ss. 159–212). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  31. Flanigan, A.E., Kiewra, K.A. i Luo, L. (2016). Conversations with four highly productive German educational psychologists: Frank Fischer, Hans Gruber, Heinz Mandl, and Alexander Renkl. Educational Psychology Review, 1–28.
  32. Fox, M.F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13, 285–305.
  33. Fox, M.F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity. Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 293–305.
  34. Gasset, J.O. y (1932). The Revolt of the Masses. New York: Norton.
  35. Golub, B. (1998). The Croatian scientific elite and its socio-professional roots. Scientometrics, 43(2), 207–229.
  36. Gorelova, O. i Lovakov, A. (2016). Academic Inbreeding and Research Productivity of Russian Faculty Members. Working Papers. WP BRP 32/EDU/2016.
  37. Groves, R.M. (2006). Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly.70(5), 646–675.
  38. Guldbrandsen, M. i Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy. 34, 932–950.
  39. GUS (2011). Higher Education Institutions and Their Finances in 2010. Warsaw: GUS (Main Statistical Office).
  40. Hagstrom, W.O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39(1), 1–18.
  41. Hermanowicz, J.C. (2006). What does it take to be successful? Science, Technology, & HumanValues, 31(2), 135–152.
  42. Hibberts, M.R., Johnson, B. i Hudson, K. (2012). Common survey sampling techniques. W: L. Gideon, (red.), Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (ss. 53–74). Dordrecht: Springer.
  43. Hirsch, F. (1976). Social limits to growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  44. Horta, H. i Santos, J.M. (2016). The impact of publishing during PhD studies on career research publication, visibility, and collaborations. Research in Higher Education, 57(1), 28–50.
  45. Jones, G.A., Gopaul, B., Weinrib, J., Metcalfe, A.S., Fisher, D., Gingras, Y. i Rubenson,K. (2014). Teaching, Research, and the Canadian Professoriate. W: J.C. Shin, A. Arimoto, W.K. Cummings, U. Teichler (red.), Teaching and Research in Contemporary Higher Education. Systems, Activities and Rewards (ss. 335–355). Dordrecht: Springer.
  46. Jung, J. (2014). Research productivity by career stage among Korean academics. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(2), 85–105.
  47. Kehoe, R.R., Lepak, D.P. i Bentley, F.S. (2016). Let’s call a star a star. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206316628644
  48. Kelchtermans, S. i Veugelers, R. (2013). Top research productivity and its persistence: Gender as a double-edged sword. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 273–285.
  49. Kiewra, K.A. (1994). A slice of advice. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 31–33.
  50. Kiewra, K.A. i Creswell, J.W. (2000). Conversations with three highly productive educational psychologists: Richard Anderson, Richard Mayer, and Michael Pressley. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 135–161.
  51. Kulczycki, E. (2017). Assessing publications through a bibliometric indicator: The caseof comprehensive evaluation of scientific units in Poland. Research Evaluation, 16(1), 41–52.
  52. Kulczycki, E., Korzeń, M. i Korytkowski, P. (2017). Toward an excellence-based research funding system: Evidence from Poland. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 282–298.
  53. Kwiek, M. (2015a). The internationalization of research in Europe. A quantitative studyof 11 national systems from a micro-level perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(2), 341–359.
  54. Kwiek, M. (2015b). The unfading power of collegiality? University governance in Polandin a European comparative and quantitative perspective. International Journal of Educational Development, 43, 77–89.
  55. Kwiek, M. (2015c). Academic generations and academic work: Patterns of attitudes, behaviors and research productivity of Polish academics after 1989’. Studies in Higher Education, 40(8), 1354–1376.
  56. Kwiek, M. (2015d). Uniwersytet w dobie przemian. Instytucje i kadra akademicka w warunkach rosnącej konkurencji, Warszawa: WN PWN.
  57. Kwiek, M. (2016a). The European research elite: A cross-national study of highly productive academics across 11 European systems. Higher Education, 71(3), 379–397.
  58. Kwiek, M. (2016b). From Privatization (of the Expansion Era) to De-privatization (of the Contraction Era). A National Counter-trend in a Global Context. W: S. Slaughter i B.J. Taylor (red.), Higher Education, Stratification, and Workforce Development. Competitive Advantage in Europe, the US and Canada (ss. 311–329). Dordrecht: Springer.
  59. Kwiek, M. (2017). A generational divide in the Polish academic profession. A mixed quantitative and qualitative approach. European Educational Research Journal, 17, 1–26.
  60. Kwiek, M. (2018a). Academic top earners. Research productivity, prestige generation and salary patterns in European universities. Science and Public Policy. 45(1). February 2018. 1–13.
  61. Kwiek, M. (2018b). International Research Collaboration and International Research Orientation: Comparative Findings About European Academics”. Journal of Studies in International Education. 22(2): 136–160.
  62. Kwiek, M. (2018c). High Research Productivity in Vertically Undifferentiated Higher Education Systems: Who Are the Top Performers? Scientometrics. 115(1). 415–462.
  63. Kwiek, M. (2019a). Changing European Academics. A Comparative Study of Social Stratfication, Work Patterns and Research Productivity. London and New York: Routledge.
  64. Kwiek, M. (2019b). Internationalisation of EU Research Organisations. A Bibliometric Stocktaking Study. Brussels: European Parliament (Panel for the Future of Science and Technology).
  65. Kwiek, M. (2019c). Social Stratification in Higher Education: What It Means at the Micro-Level of the Individual Academic Scientist. Higher Education Quarterly. Vol. 73. Issue 4. 419–444.
  66. Kwiek, M. (2019d). Internacjonaliści i miejscowi: międzynarodowa współpraca badawcza w Polsce na mikropozimie indywidualnych naukowców. Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe. 1–2(53–54).
  67. Kwiek, M. (2020a). Międzynarodowa współpraca badawcza w Europie w świetle dużych danych i jej globalne konteksty. Nauka 1(2020).
  68. Kwiek, M. i Szadkowski, K. (2018). Higher Education Systems and Institutions: Poland. W: International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems, edited by Pedro N. Texteira i J.C. Shin, 1–20. Cham: Springer.
  69. Kyvik, S. (1989). Productivity differences fields of learning, and Lotka’s law. Scientometrics, 15(3–4), 205–214.
  70. Kyvik, S. (1990). Age and scientific productivity. Differences between fields of learning. Higher Education, 19(1), 37–55.
  71. Kyvik, S., i Aksnes, D.W. (2015). Explaining the increase in publication productivity among academic staff: a generational perspective. Studies in Higher Education. 40(8), 1438–1453.
  72. Latour B. i Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  73. Leišytė, L. i Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding academic work in changing institutional environment. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 27, 123–206.
  74. Levin, S., Stephan, P.E. (1991). Research Productivity Over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists, The American Economic Review, March 1991: 114–132.
  75. Locke, W., Benion, A. (2011). The United Kingdom: Academic Retreat or Professional Renewal? W: W. Locke, W.K. Cummings, D. Fisher (red.), Changing Governance and Management in Higher Education. The Perspectives of the Academy (ss. 175–197). Dordrecht: Springer.
  76. Long, H., Boggess, L.N. i Jennings, W.G. (2011). Re-assessing publication productivity among academic „stars” in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(1), 102–117.
  77. Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–323.
  78. MacRoberts, M.H. i MacRoberts, B.R. (1982). A re-evaluation of Lotka’s law of scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 12(3), 443–450.
  79. Marquina, M. i Ferreiro, M. (2015). The academic profession: The dynamics of emerging countries. W: W.K.
  80. Cummings i U. Teichler (red.), The relevance of academic work in comparative perspective (ss. 179–192). Dordrecht: Springer.
  81. Martínez, R.S., Floyd, R.G. i Erichsen, L.W. (2011). Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendationsfor increasing scholarly productivity. Journal of School Psychology, 49(6), 691–720.
  82. Mayrath, M.C. (2008). Attributions of productive authors in educational psychology journals. Educational Psychology Review, 20(1), 41–56.
  83. McNeeley, S. (2012). Sensitive Issues in Surveys: Reducing Refusals While Increasing Reliability and Quality of Responses to Sensitive Survey Items. W: G. Lior Gideon (red.), Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (ss. 377–396). Dordrecht: Springer.
  84. Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.
  85. Mesch, G. (2012). E-mail surveys. W: G. Lior Gideon (red.), Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (ss. 313–326). Dordrecht: Springer.
  86. O’Boyle, Jr., E. i Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance: Personnel psychology. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 79–119.
  87. Panagopoulos, G., Tsatsaronis, G. i Varlamis, I. (2017). Detecting rising stars in dynamic collaborative networks. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 198–222.
  88. Parker, J.N., Allesina, S. i Lortie, C.J. (2013). Characterizing a scientific elite (B): Publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics, 94(2), 469–480.
  89. Parker, J.N., Lortie, C. i Allesina, S. (2010). Characterizing a scientific elite: The social characteristics of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics, 85(1), 129–143.
  90. Patterson-Hazley, M. i Kiewra, K.A. (2013). Conversations with four highly productive educational psychologists: Patricia Alexander, Richard Mayer, Dale Schunk, and Barry Zimmerman. Educational Psychology Review, 25(1), 19–45.
  91. Perianes-Rodriguez, A.,i Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2015). Within- and between-department variability in individual productivity: The case of economics. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1497–1520.
  92. Pinheiro, R. i Antonowicz, D. (2015). Opening the gates of coping with the flow? Governing access to higher education in northern and central Europe. Higher Education, 70(3), 299–313.
  93. Piro, F.N., Rørstad, K. i Aksnes, D.W. (2016). How does prolific professors influenceon the citation impact of their university departments? Scientometrics, 107(3), 941–961.
  94. Piro, F.N., Aksnes, D.W. i Rørstad, K. (2013). A Macro Analysis of Productivity Differences Across Fields: Challenges in the Measurement of Scientific Publishing. Journalof the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2), 307–320.
  95. Postiglione, G. i Jung, J. (2013). World-class university and Asia’s top tier researchers. W:Q. Wang, Y. Cheng, i N.C. Liu (red.), Building world-class universities. Differentapproaches to a shared goal (ss. 161–180). Rotterdam: Sense.
  96. Price, D. de Solla. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
  97. Prpić, K. (1996). Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists’ productivity. Scientometrics, 36(2), 185–206.
  98. Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28(2), 207–226.
  99. Roach, M. i Sauermann, H. (2010). A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry. Research Policy, 39, 422–434.
  100. Rosen, S. (1981). The economics of superstars. The American Economic Review, 71(5), 846–858.
  101. Rørstad, K. i Aksnes, D.W. (2015). Publication rate expressed by age, gender and academic position – A large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 317–333.
  102. Rostan, M., Finkelstein, M., Huang, F. (2014). Concepts and Methods. W: F. Huang,M. Finkelstein, M. Rostan (red.), The Internationalization of the Academy. Changes, Realities and Prospects (ss. 23–35). Dordrecht: Springer.
  103. Ruiz-Castillo, J. i Costas, R. (2014). The skewness of scientific productivity. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 917–934.
  104. Seglen, P.O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628–638.
  105. Serenko, A., Cox, R.A.K., Bontis, N. i Booker, L.D. (2011). The superstar phenomenon in the knowledge management and intellectual capital academic discipline. Journalof Informetrics, 5(3), 333–345.
  106. Shin, J.C. i Cummings, W.K. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85, 581–594.
  107. Shin, J.C., Jung, J., Kim, Y. (2014). Teaching and Research of Korean Academics Across Career Stages. W: J.C. Shin, A. Arimoto, W.K. Cummings, U. Teichler (red.), Teaching and Research in Contemporary Higher Education. Systems, Activities and Rewards(ss. 177–197). Dordrecht: Springer.
  108. Sidiropoulos, A., Gogoglou, A., Katsaros, D. i Manolopoulos, Y. (2016). Gazing at the skyline for star scientists. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 789–813.
  109. Siemieńska, R. i Walczak, D. (2012). Polish higher education: From state toward market, from elite to mass education. Advances in Education in Diverse Communities: Research, Policy, and Praxis, 7, 197–224.
  110. Spector, P.E. (1981). Research designs. London: Sage.
  111. Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  112. Stephan, P. i Levin, S. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place, and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  113. Stephan, P.E., i Levin, S.G. (1991). Inequality in scientific performance: Adjustment for attribution and journal impact. Social Studies of Science, 21(2), 351–368.
  114. Stoop, I. (2012). Unit non-response due to refusal. W: G. Lior (red.), Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (ss. 121–147). Dordrecht: Springer.
  115. Teichler, U., Höhle, E.A., red. (2013). The Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Europe: Findings of a Survey in Twelve Countries. Dordrecht: Springer.
  116. Teichler, U., Arimoto, A. i Cummings, W.K. (2013). The changing academic profession. Major findings of a comparative survey. Dordrecht: Springer.
  117. Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis. Higher Education, 39(2), 201–222.
  118. Thursby, M., Thursby, J. i Gupta-Mukherjee, S. (2007). Are there real effects of licensing on academic research? A lifecycle view. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 577–598.
  119. Toutkoushian, R.K., Porter, S.R., Danielson, C. i Hollis, P.R. (2003). Using publications counts to measure an institution’s research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 121–148.
  120. Vaus, D. de (2002). Surveys in Social Research. 5th Edition. Routledge: Milton Park
  121. Villanueva-Felez, A., Molas-Gallart, M. i Escribá-Esteve, A. (2013). Measuring Personal Networks and Their Relationship with Scientific Production. Minerva, 51, 465–483.
  122. Wagner, C.S. i Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34, 1608–1618.
  123. Weert, E. de, Kaap, H. van der (2014). The Changing Balance of Teaching and Research in the Dutch Binary Higher Education System. W: J.C. Shin, A. Arimoto, W.K. Cummings, U. Teichler (red.), Teaching and Research in Contemporary Higher Education. Systems, Activities and Rewards (ss. 113–133). Dordrecht: Springer.
  124. Weir, H. i Orrick, E. (2013). The most prolific female scholars in elite criminology and criminal justice journals, 2000–2010. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24(3),273–289.
  125. White, C.S., James, K., Burke, L.A., Allen, Richard S. (2012). What makes a “research star”? Factors influencing the research productivity of business faculty. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 61(6), 584–602.
  126. Wolszczak-Derlcz, J. i Parteka, A. (2010). Scientific Productivity of Public Higher Education Institutions in Poland. A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis. Warsaw: Ernst and Young.
  127. Xie, Y. (2014). „Undemocracy”: inequalities in science. Science, 344(6186), 809–810.
  128. Yair, G., Gueta, N., Davidovitch, N. (2017). The law of limited excellence: publication productivity of Israel Prize laureates in the life and exact sciences. Scientometrics,https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2465-0.
  129. Yin, Z., Zhi, Q. (2017). Dancing with the academic elite: a promotion or hindrance of research production? Scientometrics, 110(1), 17–41.
  130. Zuckerman, H. (1970). Stratification in American Science. Sociological Inquiry, 40(2), 235–257.