Academics in the Global South are twice as likely to be promoted to professor based on their publication volumes compared with those in higher education institutions in the Global North, says a new study that criticises an “obsession with frequently ill-suited metrics” which “reinforce regional inequalities”.
In a paper published in Nature, researchers analysed hiring and promotion policies related to full professorships from 190 academic institutions across the world and national policies from 58 government agencies to see which factors held most sway in panel decisions.
According to the study, released on 22 January and covering 32 countries from the Global North and 89 countries from the Global South, research outputs were the most cited promotion criteria for institutions of all types – mentioned by 97 per cent of institutions within the 121 countries surveyed. Other popular criteria included teaching (mentioned by 93 per cent of institutions), funding success (79 per cent), awards (69 per cent) and administrative roles (61 per cent).
However, institutional priorities often diverged depending on geography, says the study led by researchers from the Global Young Academy, a 200-strong membership group representing young scientists.
In the Global South, 86 per cent of institutions discussed the number of publications in their policies compared with only 40 per cent in the Global North.
Authorship order was also more important in the Global South, with 77 per cent of institutions mentioning rank on an author list, compared with 28 per cent in the Global North.
Journal indexing is also more important for Global South professorship decisions, mentioned by 73 per cent compared with only 11 per cent in the Global North.
In contrast, non-metric journal quality as measured by qualitative evidence was much more important for promotions to professorships in the Global North, mentioned by 54 per cent of institutions, compared with just 5 per cent of Global South institutions in their policies.
National policies also tended to reflect this split, with Global South governments also focused on research publication volumes, journal indexing and authorship order.
The study notes that professorial promotion decisions based on scientometrics were “most popular in upper-middle-income countries” which “aim to close the gap with stronger economies”.
Given “high-income countries rely more on in-depth assessments of researchers’ qualities”, however, this “raises the question of the effectiveness of catch-up strategies”, suggests the paper, which says “there may be a misunderstanding about what drives the success of top-performing economies”.
“Metrics appeal owing to their perceived simplicity and objectivity, but the true meaning of ‘progress’ and ‘success’ may be unclear,” it continues, adding that “many metrics systemically disadvantage lower-income countries and their researchers”.
“Focusing on these measures risks staying behind and missing opportunities to leap ahead,” it says, adding that focusing on “metrics alone may reinforce regional inequities”.
Martin Dominik, reader in physics and astronomy at the University of St Andrews and one of the initiators of this study, said: “Some adopted assessment criteria are quite contrary to what an institution wants to achieve.”
“Management by metrics fosters uniformity, whereas our society thrives from diversity, deriving crucial benefits from the complementarity of various roles and skills.”
Commenting on how evaluation practices shaped by a universal “excellence” narrative failed to support the specific goals of institutions and reinforced Global North-South inequalities, 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, said that she “[hoped] that this work provides a foundation to rethink policies so that they foster equity, inclusivity, and research integrity as fundamental pillars of our research culture”.
