Premium
Factors affecting scholarly performance by wildlife and fisheries faculty
Author(s) -
Swihart Robert K.,
Sundaram Mekala,
Höök Tomas O.,
Dewoody J. Andrew
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
the journal of wildlife management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.94
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1937-2817
pISSN - 0022-541X
DOI - 10.1002/jwmg.1034
Subject(s) - wildlife , context (archaeology) , fisheries management , citation , productivity , demography , geography , ecology , biology , library science , sociology , computer science , economics , fishing , macroeconomics , archaeology
Publication‐ and citation‐based metrics are commonly used to summarize the productivity and impact of individuals, institutions, and journals. We examined factors hypothesized to explain variation in 5 author‐based performance metrics among 437 fisheries and wildlife faculty from 33 research‐extensive universities in the United States. Regression analyses revealed that the elapsed number of years since conferral of the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree (academic age) was a strong predictor of performance metrics, with non‐linear age effects for Hirsch's h ‐index, Brown's h b ‐index, the annual rate of increase in h (i.e., m quotient), and number of publications. Greater performance was observed for faculty with greater research appointments. Performance did not vary between Wildlife and Fisheries disciplines but did vary across sub‐disciplines; metrics indicated that genetics and disease‐related sub‐disciplines had the greatest positive effect sizes, social sciences and management‐oriented sub‐disciplines had the smallest effects, and ecology, conservation, quantitative methods, and aquatic science showed intermediate effect sizes. On average, male faculty published more articles than females, but no sex differences were evident for the other 4 performance metrics. Earlier publication relative to attainment of the Ph.D. degree (publication precocity) was associated with performance for all metrics. Regression models explained 28–54% of the deviance and may prove useful in placing reported values for performance in context of performance by peers. As an alternative point of reference, named (i.e., distinguished) faculty on average exhibited performance 31–96% greater than the performance predicted for otherwise comparable faculty. Our regression models allow for more meaningful comparison of publication and citation performance relative to peers, but they represent only one aspect of faculty performance and should not replace qualitative peer review of productivity and impact. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.