Durham versus Durban: Quantifying productivity in astrophysics research

Authors

  • Matthew Hilton Astrophysics and Cosmology Research Unit, School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2014/20140192

Keywords:

bibliometrics, citation counts, publication counts, research funding, University of KwaZulu-Natal

Abstract

Quantifying and rewarding research productivity is a contentious issue. In South Africa, there are at least two systems in wide use: peer assessment (as used by the National Research Foundation in providing researchers with individual ratings) and a simple publication count (used by the Department of Higher Education and Training to incentivise research output). At the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), the latter is used to grade the research performance of staff; however, this metric penalises those academics who work in large teams, as is increasingly common in astronomy. To test for correspondence between this metric and perceived research quality, I conducted a case study of the Extragalactic and Cosmology Group at Durham University in the UK, which is one of the leading astrophysics research groups in the world. I found that 44–74% of the permanent academic staff within this research group would not meet the research productivity target applied at UKZN in 2014. Given the disparity between this result and the esteem in which the research of the Durham group is held, I suggest that alternative methods of recognising and rewarding research output by funding agencies and universities should be explored, with an emphasis on quality rather than quantity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Published

2014-11-26

How to Cite

1.
Hilton M. Durham versus Durban: Quantifying productivity in astrophysics research. S. Afr. J. Sci. [Internet]. 2014 Nov. 26 [cited 2021 Sep. 21];110(11/12):3. Available from: https://sajs.co.za/article/view/4046