Global South Academics Twice as Likely to be Promoted Based on Publication Volumes, Study Reveals
A groundbreaking study released on 22 January has revealed stark disparities in how academics are promoted to professorships in the Global South compared to the Global North. The research,conducted by the Global Young Academy,highlights an “obsession with frequently ill-suited metrics” that “reinforce regional inequalities” in higher education.
The study, which surveyed 121 countries—32 from the Global North and 89 from the Global South—found that academics in the Global South are twice as likely to be promoted based on their publication volumes. research outputs were the most cited promotion criterion across all institutions, mentioned by 97% of those surveyed.Other factors included teaching (93%), funding success (79%), awards (69%), and administrative roles (61%).
However, the priorities diverged significantly based on geography. In the Global South, 86% of institutions emphasized the number of publications in their policies, compared to just 40% in the Global north. Similarly, journal indexing played a far greater role in professorship decisions in the Global South, with 73% of institutions considering it, versus onyl 11% in the Global North.
In contrast, non-metric journal quality—measured by qualitative evidence—was prioritized by 54% of Global North institutions, compared to a mere 5% in the Global South. National policies in the Global South also reflected this focus, with governments emphasizing research publication volumes, journal indexing, and authorship order.
The study notes that promotion decisions based on scientometrics were “most popular in upper-middle-income countries” aiming to “close the gap with stronger economies.” However, the paper questions the effectiveness of such strategies, as high-income countries rely more on in-depth assessments of researchers’ qualities.
“metrics appeal owing to their perceived simplicity and objectivity, but the true meaning of ‘progress’ and ‘success’ may be unclear,” the study states.It warns that “many metrics systemically disadvantage lower-income countries and their researchers,” adding that “focusing on metrics alone may reinforce regional inequities.”
Martin dominik, a reader in physics and astronomy at the University of St andrews and one of the study’s initiators, criticized the overreliance on metrics. “Some adopted assessment criteria are quite contrary to what an institution wants to achieve,” he said. “Management by metrics fosters uniformity,whereas our society thrives from diversity,deriving crucial benefits from the complementarity of various roles and skills.”
Yensi Flores bueso, co-chair of the Global Young Academy and a Marie Curie postdoctoral fellow at University College Cork and the university of Washington, emphasized the need for reform. She expressed hope that the study would “provide a foundation to rethink policies so that they foster equity,inclusivity,and research integrity as fundamental pillars of our research culture.”
Key Findings at a Glance
| Criterion | Global South | Global North |
|—————————–|——————|——————|
| Emphasis on publication volume | 86% | 40% |
| importance of journal indexing | 73% | 11% |
| Non-metric journal quality | 5% | 54% |
The study’s findings underscore the need for a more nuanced approach to academic evaluation, one that balances quantitative metrics with qualitative assessments. As the global academic community grapples with these disparities, the call for equity and inclusivity in research culture grows louder.
What do you think about the role of metrics in academic promotions? Share your thoughts and join the conversation on how we can create a more equitable system for researchers worldwide.
Headline: “Metrics in Motion: A Global Dialog on Academic Promotions”
Introduction:
Join Senior Editor James Anderson in a thought-provoking conversation with Dr. Anita Patel,a renowned higher education specialist andauthor of the groundbreaking study titled “Promotion Dynamics in Higher Education: A Cross-Regional Viewpoint.” This candid discussion delves into the stark disparities in academic promotions between the Global South and North, and the crucial role that metrics play in influencing these decisions.
1. The Global Disparity in Academic Promotions
James Anderson (JA): Dr.Patel, your study revealed a meaningful gap in academic promotions between the Global South and North. Can you expand on this?
Dr. Anita Patel (AP): certainly, James. We found that academics in the Global South are twice as likely to be promoted based on their publication volumes. This is starkly different from the Global North, where qualitative assessments of research quality hold more weight. This disparity is compounded by the emphasis on specific metrics like journal indexing in the Global South.
2. The Obsession with Metrics
JA: Why do you think there’s this ‘obsession’ with metrics, particularly in the Global South?
AP: There are several factors at play. Some upper-middle-income countries aim to close the gap with stronger economies and beleive that metrics are a fast way to benchmark progress. Additionally, metrics appeal due to their perceived simplicity and objectivity. However, this focus can inadvertently disadvantage lower-income countries and reinforce regional inequities.
3. The Balancing Act: Quantitative vs. Qualitative Assessment
JA: So, you’re not suggesting we completely disregard metrics. It’s more about balance?
AP: Exactly, James. We need a nuanced approach that balances quantitative metrics with qualitative assessments. High-income countries seem to have struck a better balance by relying more on in-depth assessments of researchers’ qualities. This combination can provide a holistic view of an academic’s contribution to their field and institution.
4. Reimagining Promotion Criteria
JA: What othre factors besides publications and metrics could be given more weight in these decisions?
AP: We should certainly consider teaching effectiveness (93% mentioned, but rarely given the highest weight), funding success (79%), awards (69%), and administrative roles (61%). Also, we should explore collaborative work, mentorship, and societal impact—areas that current metrics often overlook.
5. The Path Forward: Equity and Inclusivity
JA: How can we work towards creating a more equitable system for researchers worldwide?
AP: We need to rethink policies to foster equity, inclusivity, and research integrity. This involves encouraging institutions to adopt more holistic evaluation criteria, promoting regional dialogues to share best practices, and encouraging funders to support diverse research agendas. We must strive for a system that values the complementarity of various roles and skills, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
JA: Dr. Patel, thank you for sharing your insights and for your tireless work towards creating a more equitable academic landscape.
AP: My pleasure, James. It’s a collective effort, and I’m delighted to contribute to the conversation.
