NoNameProf

A professor at research universities (i.e., top ranked schools) is judged on many dimensions, but one of the most important dimensions is the number of papers a professor has published in top journals.

Such simplistic approach has two problems. First, not all top journal publications are equal, some are really good, and some, where, should not be there. papers should not be treated as the same.

Second, which is a much more serious problem, is that the system does not take into consideration how many coauthors are on each paper, and the individual contribution each coauthor has made. So technically, someone can collude — just find 4 good colleagues, each write one paper, but then simply add the other 4 names to the paper. as a result, instead of having 1 paper (single author), each will have 5 papers (with 5 people as coauthor). the funny thing is that, someone in the second situations (5 papers with 5 coauthors) will be valued substantially higher than someone in the first situation (1 single author paper)!

I like the system in disciplines such as biology, chemistry, engineering, somewhat better. In these disciplines, a professor must demonstrate his/her ability to obtain grants by himself/herself, and each professor normally runs his/her own lab. it is not perfect, but at least nobody can simply game the system by getting on other people’s papers.