arXiv subjects

Julia Heuritsch

Publications and source records attributed to Julia Heuritsch.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2021

Reflecting on Motivations: How Reasons to Publish affect Research Behaviour in Astronomy

Recent research in the field of reflexive metrics have studied the emergence and consequences of evaluation gaps in science. The concept of evaluation gaps captures potential discrepancies between what researchers value about their research, in particular research quality, and what metrics measure. As a result, scientists may experience anomie and adopt innovative ways to cope. These often value quantity over quality and may even compromise research integrity. A consequence of such gaps may therefore be research misconduct and a decrease in research quality. In the language of rational choice theory, an evaluation gap persists if motivational factors arising out of the internal component of an actors situation are incongruent with those arising out of the external components. The aim of this research is therefore to study and compare autonomous and controlled motivations to become an astronomer, to do research in astronomy and to publish scientific papers. Moreover, we study how these different motivational factors affect publication pressure, the experience of organisational justice and the observation of research misconduct. In summary, we find evidence for an evaluation gap and that controlled motivational factors arising from evaluation procedures based on publication record drives up publication pressure, which, in turn, was found to increase the likelihood of perceived frequency of misbehaviour.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2021

Reflexive Behaviour: How publication pressure affects research quality in Astronomy

Reflexive metrics is a branch of science studies which explores how the demand for accountability and performance measurement in science has shaped the research culture in recent decades. Hypercompetition and publication pressure are part of this neoliberal culture. How do scientists respond to these pressures? Studies on research integrity and organizational culture suggest that people who feel treated unfairly by their institution are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour, such as scientific misconduct. By building up on reflexive metrics, combined with studies on the influence of organisational culture on research integrity, this study reflects on the research behaviour of astronomers: 1) To what extent is research (mis-)behaviour reflexive, i.e. dependent on perceptions of publication pressure and distributive & organisational justice? 2) What impact does scientific misconduct have on research quality? In order to perform this reflection, we conducted a comprehensive survey of academic and non-academic astronomers worldwide and received 3,509 responses. We found that publication pressure explains 19% of the variance in occurrence of misconduct and between 7 and 13% of the variance of the perception of distributive & organisational justice as well as overcommitment to work. Our results on the perceived impact of scientific misconduct on research quality show that the epistemic harm of questionable research practices should not be underestimated. This suggests there is a need for a policy change. In particular, lesser attention to metrics (such as publication rate) in the allocation of grants, telescope time and institutional rewards would foster better scientific conduct and hence research quality.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2021

The Evaluation Gap in Astronomy -- Explained through a Rational Choice Framework

The concept of evaluation gaps captures potential discrepancies between what researchers value about their research, in particular research quality, and what metrics measure. The existence of evaluation gaps can give rise to questions about the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to perform research, i.e. how field-specific notions of quality compete with notions captured via evaluation metrics, and consequently how researchers manage the balancing act between intrinsic values and requirements of evaluation procedures. This study analyses the evaluation gap from a rational choice point of view for the case of observational astronomers, based on a literature review and 19 semi-structured interviews with international astronomers. By taking a close look at the role of institutional norms and different forms of capital - such as funding, publication rates and granted telescope time - at play in astronomy, light can be shed on the workings of the balance act and its consequences on research quality in astronomy. We find that astronomers experience an anomie; they want to follow their intrinsic motivation to pursue science in order to push knowledge forward, while at the same time following their extrinsic motivation to comply with institutional norms. The balance act is the art of serving performance indicators in order to stay in academia, while at the same time compromising research quality as little as possible. Gaming strategies shall give the appearance of compliance, while institutionalised means how to achieve a good bibliometric record are used in innovative ways, such as salami slicing or going for easy publications. This leads to an overall decrease in research quality.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2020

Knowledge Utilization and Open Science Policies: Noble aims that ensure quality research or Ordering discoveries like a pizza?

Open Science has been a rising theme in the landscape of science policy in recent years. The goal is to make research that emerges from publicly funded science to become findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) for use by other researchers. Knowledge utilization policies aim to efficiently make scientific knowledge beneficial for society at large. This paper demonstrates how Astronomy aspires to be open and transparent given their criteria for high research quality, which aim at pushing knowledge forward and clear communication of findings. However, the use of quantitative metrics in research evaluation puts pressure on the researcher, such that taking the extra time for transparent publishing of data and results is difficult, given that astronomers are not rewarded for the quality of research papers, but rather their quantity. This paper explores the current mode of openness in Astronomy and how incentives due to funding, publication practices and indicators affect this field. The paper concludes with some recommendations on how policies such as making science more open have the potential to contribute to scientific quality in Astronomy.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2018

Insights into the effects of indicators on knowledge production in Astronomy

Nine interviews were conducted with astronomers from Leiden University, and a document analysis was performed on relevant institutional (self-) evaluation documents, annual reports, and CVs of the interviewees. The aim was to perform a qualitative study about the relationship between the research behaviour of astronomers and how their science is being evaluated. This study encompassed the funding and publication system as well as the indicators used to measure the scientific output, its quality and the research performance. This report sheds light on how astronomers define high-quality research and how they think that creating knowledge of value is encouraged or hampered by the evaluation processes. We found that astronomers are realists who define scientific quality on the basis of "truth" and are driven by curiosity. These two factors make up their intrinsic values and motivation to perform Astronomy. Publication pressure, arising from the requirements of "the system", creates an extrinsic motivation to perform. This results in premature publications, low readability and replicability, risk aversion and a focus on quantity rather than quality. Hence, indicators do not merely represent quality, but also co-constitute what counts as good research. While we observe such constitutive effects of indicator use on research behaviour and content, we do not see that the astronomer's intrinsic values are co-constituted. This gives rise to a discrepancy between what is being measured by indicators and what astronomers define as scientific quality; the so-called "evaluation gap". Findings on constitutive effects and the evaluation gap in Astronomy lays out the conceptual groundwork for further empirical research and for policy advice on alternative evaluation practices and innovative indicators with the aim of bridging the "evaluation gap".

physics.ed-ph↗