Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations

Using an online survey of academics at 55 randomly selected institutions across the US and Canada, we explore priorities for publishing decisions and their perceived importance within review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We find that respondents most value journal readership, while they believe their peers most value prestige and related metrics such as impact factor when submitting their work for publication. Respondents indicated that total number of publications, number of publications per year, and journal name recognition were the most valued factors in RPT. Older and tenured respondents (most likely to serve on RPT committees) were less likely to value journal prestige and metrics for publishing, while untenured respondents were more likely to value these factors. These results suggest disconnects between what academics value versus what they think their peers value, and between the importance of journal prestige and metrics for tenured versus untenured faculty in publishing and RPT perceptions.本研究针对美国与加拿大共计55家随机遴选的学术机构，面向其学术人员开展线上调查，旨在探究学术出版决策的优先级，以及该优先级在评审、晋升与终身教职（Review, Promotion, and Tenure，RPT）流程中的感知重要性。研究结果显示，受访学术人员自身最为重视期刊受众规模（journal readership），但他们认为同行在投稿发表时，最看重期刊声望及其相关指标，例如影响因子（impact factor）。受访人员指出，在RPT流程中，总发表量、年均发表量以及期刊知名度，是最受重视的考量因素。年龄较大且已获得终身教职（tenured）的受访人员（这类人群通常任职于RPT委员会），对期刊声望及出版相关指标的重视程度更低；而未获得终身教职（untenured）的受访人员，则更看重此类因素。上述结果表明，学术人员自身的价值取向与他们所认知的同行价值取向之间存在脱节，同时在学术出版与RPT流程的认知中，终身教职教员与非终身教职教员对期刊声望及出版相关指标的重视程度也存在显著差异。