Francesco Rosati

The importance of accounting for the number of co-authors and their order when assessing research performance at the individual level in the life sciences

Accurate measurement of research productivity should take account of both the number of co-authors of every scientific work and of the different contributions of the individuals. For researchers in the life sciences, common practice is to indicate such contributions through position in the authors list. In this work, we measure the distortion introduced to bibliometric ranking lists for scientific productivity when the number of co-authors or their position in the list is ignored. The field of observation consists of all Italian university professors working in the life sciences, with scientific production examined over the period 2004–2008. The outcomes of the study lead to a recommendation against using indicators or evaluation methods that ignore the different authors’ contributions to the research results.

Career advancement and scientific performance in universities

Many governments have placed priority on excellence in higher education as part of their policy agendas. Processes for recruitment and career advancement in universities thus have a critical role. The efficiency of faculty selection processes can be evaluated by comparing the subsequent performance of competition winners against that of the losers and the pre-existing staff of equal academic rank. Our study presents an empirical analysis concerning the recruitment procedures for associate professors in the Italian university system. The results of a bibliometric analysis of the hard science areas reveal that new associate professors are on average more productive than the incumbents. However a number of crucial concerns emerge, in particular concerning occurrence of non-winner candidates that are more productive than the winners over the subsequent triennium, and cases of winners that are completely unproductive. Beyond the implications for the Italian case, the analysis offers considerations for all decision-makers regarding the ex post evaluation of the efficiency of the recruitment process and the desirability of providing selection committees with bibliometric indicators in support of evaluation (i.e. informed peer review).

Measuring institutional research productivity for the life sciences: the importance of accounting for the order of authors in the byline

Accurate measurement of institutional research productivity should account for the real contribution of the research staff to the output produced in collaboration with other organizations. In the framework of bibliometric measurement, this implies accounting for both the number of co-authors and each individual’s real contribution to scientific publications. Common practice in the life sciences is to indicate such contribution through the order of author names in the byline. In this work, we measure the distortion introduced to university-level bibliometric productivity rankings when the number of co-authors or their position in the byline is ignored. The field of observation consists of all Italian universities active in the life sciences (Biology and Medicine). The analysis is based on the research output of the university staff over the period 2004–2008. Based on the results, we recommend against the use of bibliometric indicators that ignore co-authorship and real contribution of each author to research outputs.

The determinants of academic career advancement: Evidence from Italy

This paper investigates the determinants of professors’ career advancement in Italian universities. From the analyses, it emerges that the fundamental determinant of an academic candidate’s success is not scientific merit, but rather the number of years that the candidate has belonged to the same university as the president of the selection committee. Where applicants have participated in research work with the president, their probability of success also increases significantly. The factors of the years of service and occurrence of joint research with other members of the commission also have an effect, however, that carries less weight. Nepotism, although it exists, seems less important. The scientific quality of the members of the commission has a negligible effect on the expected outcome of the competition, and even less so the geographical location of the university holding the competition.

A feedback-based model for CSR assessment and materiality analysis

Abstract Current CSR literature offers little insight into how to engage customers and other stakeholders about their CSR expectations and perceptions. The aim of this paper is to propose a model for CSR evaluation and planning based on the classification of customer CSR feedback through the comparison of three aspects of CSR commitment (disclosed, perceived and expected). Although the paper is focused on customers, the model can be applied indifferently to any stakeholder group, thus providing a valuable instrument for materiality analysis and stakeholder engagement. In effect, the model allows identifying material CSR issues regarding all stakeholder perceptions and expectations.

The north---south divide in the Italian higher education system

This work examines whether the macroeconomic divide between northern and southern Italy is also present at the level of higher education. The analysis confirms that the research performance in the sciences of the professors in the south is on average less than that of the professors in the north, and that this gap does not show noticeable variations at the level of gender or academic rank. For the universities, the gap is still greater. The study analyzes some possible determinants of the gap, and provides some policy recommendations for its reduction.

Gender bias in academic recruitment

It is well known that women are underrepresented in the academic systems of many countries. Gender discrimination is one of the factors that could contribute to this phenomenon. This study considers a recent national academic recruitment campaign in Italy, examining whether women are subject to more or less bias than men. The findings show that no gender-related differences occur among the candidates who benefit from positive bias, while among those candidates affected by negative bias, the incidence of women is lower than that of men. Among the factors that determine success in a competition for an academic position, the number of the applicant’s career years in the same university as the committee members assumes greater weight for male candidates than for females. Being of the same gender as the committee president is also a factor that assumes greater weight for male applicants. On the other hand, for female applicants, the presence of a full professor in the same university with the same family name as the candidate assumes greater weight than for male candidates.

A methodology to measure the effectiveness of academic recruitment and turnover

We propose a method to measure the effectiveness of the recruitment and turnover of professors, in terms of their research performance. The method presented is applied to the case of Italian universities over the period 2008–2012. The work then analyses the correlation between the indicators of effectiveness used, and between the indicators and the universities’ overall research performance. In countries that conduct regular national assessment exercises, the evaluation of effectiveness in recruitment and turnover could complement the overall research assessments. In particular, monitoring such parameters could assist in deterring favoritism, in countries exposed to such practices.

Selection committees for academic recruitment: does gender matter?

Underrepresentation of women in the academic system is a problem common to many countries, often associated with gender discrimination. In the Italian academic context in particular, favoritism is recognized as a diffuse phenomenon affecting hiring and career advancement. One of the questions that naturally arises is whether women who do assume decisional roles, having witnessed other phenomena of discrimination, would practice less favoritism than men in similar positions. Our analysis refers to the particular case of favoritism in the work of university selection committees responsible for career advancement. We observe a moderate positive association between competitions with expected outcomes and the fact the committee president is a woman. Although committees presided by women give more weight to scientific merit than those presided by men, favoritism still occurs. In fact, in the case the committee president is a woman, the single most important factor for the success of a candidate is joint research with the president; while in the case of male presidents, it is the years together in the same university.

Relatives in the same university faculty: nepotism or merit?

In many countries culture, practice or regulations inhibit the co-presence of relatives within the university faculty. We test the legitimacy of such attitudes and provisions, investigating the phenomenon of nepotism in Italy, a nation with high rates of favoritism. We compare the individual research performance of “children” who have “parents” in the same university against that of the “non-children” with the same academic rank and seniority, in the same field. The results show non-significant differences in performance. Analyses of career advancement show that children’s research performance is on average superior to that of their colleagues who did not advance. The study’s findings do not rule out the existence of nepotism, which has been actually recorded in a low percentage of cases, but do not prove either the most serious presumed consequences of nepotism, namely that relatives who are poor performers are getting ahead of non-relatives who are better performers. In light of these results, many attitudes and norms concerning parental ties in academia should be reconsidered.