Introducing the Cake-factor

After many years of experience working in the higher education sector, we have become very familiar with the array of research assessment tools. Impact factors, h-index and Eigenfactor all play an important role in the production of global excellence. But it has come to our attention that something is still missing from the toolbox.

Important as the existing tools are, they have one shortcoming: they are individualistic. They do not contribute to academic communities. Hence, we introduce the C-factor.

Short for Cake-factor, this can be used to assess the excellence of celebration when a paper is published or a grant won. It follows the lead of other incentives based on extrinsic motivation. The logic is that only through a combination of academic competition and community may we develop higher research productivity.

The C-factor thereby serves as a quality assurance tool, making it possible to compare the total magnitude of and engagement with different acts of celebration, allowing meaningful comparisons between groups, departments and universities (as well as, of course, between individual PIs). In this way, it is a potent leadership and managerial tool that could also be of interest to funders and politicians.

The C-factor is calculated in the following way:

C = (Q x 2.5) + (N x A), where C = Cake-factor, Q = Quality of cake, N = Number of cake eaters, and A = Academic rank.

Q = (P + T), where P assesses quality of production and T ranks the type of cake.

The value of P is set in the following way: Mass-produced cake = 1; Bakery-produced cake = 2; Homemade cake = 3.

The value of T is set in the following way: Dry, easy-to-make cookie-like cake = 1, Plain, ordinary cake = 2, Delicious cake, making the cake-eaters go “wow” = 3.

The value of N is set by the number of academics attending the celebration who actually eat the cake. This is not to be confused with the number of people attending the celebration. Academics who do not eat cake and non-academics who attend the celebration regardless of whether they eat cake or not must not be counted. Vigilance on this point is important: to count them would seriously diminish the validity of the C-factor.

The value of A is set by the cake-eaters’ academic title in the following way: PhD student = 1; postdoc=2; assistant professor = 3, associate professor = 4, full professor = 5. These values are set in order to reproduce and reinforce the appropriate existing structures of the hierarchical academic system.

The constant 2.5 is set because there should always be a constant in every equation. It looks good. Besides, quality (Q) is important.

In an era of increasing academic fraud, measures are needed to protect the integrity of recorded C-factors. Hence, the act of cake consumption must be documented by photograph or video and be posted on the associated research group website, Facebook feed, Instagram or X account, in accordance with open science principles.

To market the importance of the C-factor, a number of branded goods will be created, such as T-shirts, badges, mugs and pens. These will contain the C-factor logo, with space left for the printing of bespoke boasting, such as “our C-factor is 105”. These can be sold and worn at conferences, for example.

Baking the C-factor into scientists’ consciousness in such ways will stimulate research. Recognising the growing need for networking in the research market, it will incentivise the “lone” researcher to get their teeth into team science, enhancing academic community and culture. In its turn, this leads to increased productivity.

Celebrating a published paper, chapter, book or research grant is nothing new. Eating cake on these occasions is also common practice. This tradition strengthens organisational culture and acknowledges the hard work put in by the authors. However, by introducing the C-factor, it is possible not only to invest in intangible assets like culture but use it to better position oneself in the research market. The C-factor becomes currency – and, after all, that is what matters.

If you enjoyed our satirical critique of the metrification in higher education, we have achieved our goal. If you are seriously considering implementing the C-factor where you work, however, we sincerely encourage you to reconsider – even if an arms race in cake quality might be one of the sweeter incentives that metrics have introduced into science.  

Mats Persson is associate professor of organisation and management at the University of Inland Norway. Jan Ch. Karlsson is professor emeritus of sociology at Working Life Science, Karlstad University, Sweden.