This study focuses on the negative effects of the highly competitive academic environment. We summarized the literature on what consequences an over-competitive system has on the people involved and on the productivity of the system as a whole. We conclude that negative effects outweigh the potential gains which competitive systems bring about. The literature suggests that not only do constant rejections demotivate the majority of academics, but also the funding allocation process in itself seems inefficient. The pressure on academics is so high that we tend to systematically over-estimate our success chances of our funding proposals, manuscripts and promotion requests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FriedmanM.Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
2.
HayekFAV. (1973). Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
LacyFJ, SheehanBA. Job satisfaction among academic staff: An international perspective. Higher Educ., 1997; 34:305–322.
4.
RobertsP. Tertiary education, knowledge and neoliberalism. In. CoddJ, SullivanK, eds. Education Policy Directions in Aotearoa New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, 2005, pp. 39–51.
5.
RobertsP. Neoliberalism, performativity and research. Int Rev Educ., 2007; 53:349–365.
6.
CarrollL. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. London: Macmillan, 1865.
7.
DayNE. The silent majority: manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Acad Manage Learn Educ., 2011; 10:704–718.
8.
WoodF. Factors influencing research performance of university academic staff. Higher Educ., 1990; 19:81–100.
9.
OlsenTB, KyvikS, HovdhaugenE. The promotion to full professor—through competition or by individual competence?. Tertiary Educ Manage., 2005; 11:299–316.
10.
TrowerCA. What is current policy. In: ChaitRP, ed. The Questions of Tenure. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.
11.
RoeyS, RakR. Fall Staff in Postsecondary Institutions, 1995. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington DC, 1998.
12.
KnappLG, Kelly-ReidJE, GinderSA. Employees in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2010, and Salaries of Full-Time Instructional Staff, 2010–11. U.S. Department of Education, Washington DC, 2011.
13.
AltbachPG. How are faculty faring in other countries? In: ChaitRP, ed, The Questions of Tenure. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.
14.
JonesA. Viewpoint: The Explosive Growth of Postdocs in Computer Science. Communications of the ACM. 2013; 56:37–39.
OsmondDH. Malice's wonderland: Research funding and peer review. J Neurobiol., 2004; 14:95–112.
17.
Kemkes-GrottenthalerA. Postponing or rejecting parenthood? Results of a survey among female academic professionals. J Biosoc Sci., 2003; 35:213–226.
18.
WolfingerNH, MasonMA, GouldenM. 2008. Alone in the Ivory Tower: How Birth Events Vary among Fast-Track Professionals. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Retrieved. Washington DC.
19.
WolfingerNH, MasonMA, GouldenM. Problems in the pipeline: Gender, marriage, and fertility in the ivory tower. J Higher Educ., 2008; 79:388–405.
20.
GmelchW, LovrichN, WilkeP. Sources of stress in academe: A national perspective. Res Higher Educ., 1984; 20:477–490.
21.
GeardN, NobleJ. Modelling academic research funding as a resource allocation problem. Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Social Simulation, University of Kassel, Germany pp. SES-09_I, 2010.
22.
BennerM, SandströmU. Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system. Res Policy., 2000; 29:291–301.
23.
WashburnJ. Academic Freedom and the Corporate University. Academe., 2011; 97:8–13.
24.
MillerAN, TaylorSG, BedeianAG. Publish or perish: academic life as management faculty live it. Career Dev Int., 2011; 16:422–445.
25.
De RondM, MillerAN. Publish or perish: Bane or boon of academic life?. J Manage Inq., 2005; 14:321–329.
26.
BedeianAG, Van FleetDD, HymanHH. Scientific achievement and editorial board membership. Organ Res Methods., 2009; 12:211–238.
27.
MosesI. Promotion of academic staff. Higher Educ., 1986; 15:135–149.
28.
HuthEJ. Irresponsible Authorship and Wasteful Publication. Ann Int Med., 1986; 104:257–259.
29.
PayeS. Convergence and divergence of career paths in the labour market: the case of British academia. Villeurbanne Cedex: Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe, 2011.
30.
FangH. Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly. Scientometrics., 2011; 87:293–301.
31.
StarbuckWH. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? the statistics of academic publication. Organ Sci., 2005; 16:180–200.
32.
AdlerNJ, HarzingA-W. When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Acad Manage Learn Educ., 2009; 8:72–95.
33.
CameronWB. Informal sociology, a casual introduction to sociological thinking. New York, Random House, 1963.
34.
MinerJB. Commentary on Arthur Bedeian's “The Manuscript Review Process: The Proper Roles of Authors, Referees, and Editors.”. J Manage Inq., 2003; 12:339–343.
35.
BedeianAG. Peer Review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Acad Manage Learn Educ., 2004; 3:198–216.
36.
FanelliD. Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? an empirical support from US States data. PLoS One., 2010; 5:e10271.
37.
GulbrandsenM, SmebyJ-C. Industry funding and university professors' research performance. Res Policy., 2005; 34:932–950.
GreenF. Demanding work: The paradox of job quality in the affluent economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.
40.
BartneckC. The All-In Publication Policy. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Digital Society (ICDS 2010), St. Maarten, 2010, pp. 37–40.
41.
PirsigRM. Lila: an inquiry into morals. New York: Bantam Books, 1991.
