An academia beyond quantity: a reply to Loyola et al. and Halme et al.

Abstract

We recently criticised academia's obsession with quantity in papers, citations, and grant income. An overly strong focus on such metrics has produced ever busier academics, shorter and less comprehensive papers, less time for nuanced discussion, and less local, empirical research – and, ultimately, has eroded time for creativity and reflection [ 1 Fischer J. et al. Academia's obsession with quantity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012; 27: 473-474 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (84) Google Scholar ]. Loyola et al. [ 2 Loyola R.D. et al. Obsession with quantity: a view from the south. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012; 27: 585 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar ] and Halme et al. [ 3 Halme P. et al. Solutions to replace quantity with thinking in science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012; 27: 586 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar ] challenged some of our assertions and contributed useful thoughts to advance this discussion. Loyola et al. argued that the very metrics we criticised had in fact helped to foster better quality research and new research networks in Brazil. We concur that it is plausible that, depending on their histories, some research settings will benefit from the application of quantity-related metrics, whereas other settings will suffer. Central and South America, and parts of Eastern Europe and Asia, have a relatively short history of publishing internationally. In such settings, providing incentives to face international peer review very likely will improve the quality of science and lead to new collaborations. By contrast, we maintain that, in many established research settings (e.g., the EU, North America, Australia), many once sensible incentives are being over-applied and thereby have become counterproductive. Halme et al. encapsulated well the problems of many senior academics (and, we add, those in tenure-track positions): not enough time to go into the field or the laboratory, talk to research students, or even adequately stay on top of an exponentially growing literature. We welcome their suggestions to move from the diagnosis of our cultural disease to its treatment. Whereas we suggested making changes in our immediate environment, Halme et al. argued we should instead lobby for policy changes. We do not fully agree with this argument, partly because it provides too many excuses for individual academics to simply 'blame the system' without doing anything about it. Arguably then, a mixture is needed of lobbying for top-down changes and bottom-up initiatives that encourage leadership and change from within our immediate working environments.