Embracing complexity in academic performance appraisal Online publication date: Wed, 02-Jul-2014
by Lukas Klement; Max C. Mosterd
International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management (IJCLM), Vol. 2, No. 3, 2013
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.
Existing subscribers:
Go to Inderscience Online Journals to access the Full Text of this article.
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management (IJCLM):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:
Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.
If you still need assistance, please email subs@inderscience.com
Our Blog 
Follow us on Twitter 
Visit us on Facebook