Research: Science and Education
The Change in Publication Rates at Undergraduate Institutions during the Last Three Decades Phyllis A. Leber, Benjamin R. Williams, and Claude H. Yoder* Department of Chemistry, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA 17604; *
[email protected] Given the prominence of undergraduate research at most liberal arts colleges today and its codification by the Council of Undergraduate Research (CUR), we felt that it was appropriate to update previous surveys (1–3) with the results of undergraduate research. The original survey included 174 private colleges without masters or doctoral programs as defined by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) IIA or IIB categories that had been the baccalaureate origin of 8 or more PhD degrees in chemistry from 1967 to 1976 (1). The present survey of 55 institutions includes those that have produced 19 or more publications in chemistry from 1996 to 2005 and also have been the baccalaureate origin of 70 or more science PhD degrees (4) from 1995 to 2004. Those schools with more than 25 publications in chemistry during the period 1977–1992 (3) were also included. The publication data for chemistry departments were obtained by searching the Web of Science using Science Citation Index Expanded 1965–present with the following qualifiers: the institution name, location, and CHEM concatenated with SAME in the address field. Science Citation Index Expanded covers 5900 journals across 150 scientific disciplines, including chemistry, biochemistry, biology, pharmacology, biotechnology, materials science, engineering, and medicine. The publications were limited to journal articles, not books or presentations. The search was conducted for three decades: 1976–1985, 1986–1995, and 1996–2005. The results of the survey are given in Table 1, which lists the institutions alphabetically; the number of publications for each of the decades; the publications for each decade divided by the number of years in that period and the number of full-time faculty members, no.∙(yr fac); the change in the number of publications per year per faculty member from one decade to another; percent increase in the number of publications per year per faculty member; the fraction of articles (1996–2005) that listed the faculty member from the home institution as the first author or corresponding author; the number of meeting or conference abstracts from each chemistry department for the period 1998–2005 as obtained from SciFinder Scholar; the number of abstracts per year per faculty; and the ratio of publications to abstracts per year per faculty for the most recent decade. The number of full-time tenure-track faculty was obtained from the CUR “Research in Chemistry at Private Undergraduate Colleges” directories for 1977 and 1985 (3rd edition) and from the 1996 American Chemical Society (ACS) “College Chemistry Faculties (10th edition)”. These sources were chosen to give the most reliable and consistent number of faculty members at the beginning (or as close to the beginning as available sources allowed) of each decade. A comparison of the number of publications per year per faculty member shows that this number increased from the first decade (1976–1985) to the second for 39 of the 55 institutions. From the second decade to the most recent decade the number increased for 38 institutions, and when the most recent decade is compared to the first decade 43 institutions show an increased in the number of publications per year per faculty member. The 876
average numbers tell the same story: the average number of publications per year per faculty member was 0.34, 0.43, and 0.56 for the earliest to the most recent decade, respectively. The number of institutions with an average number of publications per year per faculty member greater than 0.40 was 18, 25, and 35 for the three decades; for the same statistic the number of institutions at greater than 0.80 was 4, 5, and 9 from the earliest to the most recent decade, respectively. Finally, the increase from the first decade to the most recent is also shown as a percentage (in publications per year per faculty member). The percentages range from ‒100 to 4800 with a median of 65. These numbers are subject to a number of caveats. First, the publication rates depend on the accuracy of the search engine and abstracting service. For example, publications in this Journal were indexed by Chemical Abstracts with an institutional affiliation in the address field after 1996. Hence, a separate search was run for publications in this Journal for the first two decades. Because of the great variety of journals included in Web of Science, it is unlikely that more than a small number of publications produced by these 55 institutions was missed. Second, the publication rate depends on the definition of the number of faculty members that produce the publications. To obtain the best comparison of the publication rate for the three decades, we believe that it is necessary to use comparable definitions of “the number of faculty”. In a mail survey of the institutions it was discovered that in 2007 the number of tenure-track faculty is in many cases higher than that used for the last decade, but, for the sake of consistency, numbers reported for tenure-track faculty at the beginning of the decade by either the CUR or ACS directories were used. When the number of tenure-track plus half of the full-time visiting faculty reported in 2007 was used for the last decade, it was found that 15 institutions showed a decrease in publication rate from the first to the third decade. Third, the publication rate depends on the time period examined. Use of the publication rate for the institutions examined in the 1977–1992 time period leads to a greater number of institutions that show a decrease in publication rate, probably because of the overlap of this time period with the more productive 1986–1995 time period. It is possible that the publication rates would be different if other time periods were selected, but we believe that the present methodology has produced a reasonable view of the changes in these rates. Fourth, the publication rates are certainly dependent on the institutions included in the study. Although we have made no attempt at geographical diversity, representative institutions in various geographical regions appear, as do a variety of types of institutions that are considered by most to be predominantly undergraduate. The conclusion seems to be clear—most institutions surveyed have seen an increase in the rate of publication over the past three decades. Although this is not the only measure of research, most scientists agree that it is the most important indicator of research productivity (5). Our finding appears to run contrary to that reported in the Academic Excellence report (6),
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 86 No. 7 July 2009 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
Research: Science and Education Table 1. Publications Data Number of Puba
Pubs/[no./(yr fac)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Allegheny (PA) 7 Amherst (MA) 74 Barnard (NY) 18 Bates (ME) 9 Bowdoin (ME) 28 Bryn Mawr (PA) 28 Bucknell (PA) 55 Calvin (MI) 19 Canisius (NY) 31 Carleton (MN) 22 Colby (ME) 9 Colgate (NY) 34 Colorado (CO) 17 Connecticut (CT) 13 Davidson (NC) 14 Dickinson (PA) 5 Drury (MO) 21 Earlham (IN) 8 F&M (PA) 45 Furman U (SC) 56 Gettysburg (PA) 7 Grinnell (IA) 17 Hamilton (NY) 1 Harvey Mudd (CA) 22 Haverford (PA) 40 Hendrix (AR) 3 Holy Cross (MA) 20 Hope (MI) 75 Wesleyan U (IL) 1 Ithaca (NY) 37 Juniata (PA) 5 Kalamazoo (MI) 6 Lafayette (PA) 25 Lawrence (WI) 1 Macalester (MN) 12 Middlebury (VT) 5 Mt. Holyoke (MA) 33 Oberlin (OH) 32 Occidental (CA) 9 Pomona (CA) 79 Pratt (NY) 23 Reed (OR) 11 Richmond U (VA) 12 Smith (MA) 15 Spelman (GA) 0 St. Olaf (MN) 21 Swarthmore (PA) 30 Trinity (CT) 14 Union (NY) 25 Vassar (NY) 25 Wabash (IN) 13 Wellesley (MA) 16 Wesleyan U (CT) 137 Williams (MA) 57 Wooster (OH) 37
9 59 24 23 33 43 51 34 22 9 23 47 22 20 12 9 23 13 74 87 14 21 7 58 26 7 43 46 7 19 16 8 108 22 11 23 9 56 21 69 13 28 21 20 2 43 47 14 28 18 22 40 149 63 35
19 36 21 39 61 42 74 30 – 19 38 47 11 64 24 41 17 19 60 115 30 28 32 64 64 21 50 64 42 15 13 19 166 29 33 24 47 56 53 88 10 32 35 22 29 16 67 25 48 46 33 42 234 61 44
0.08 0.93 0.36 0.15 0.51 0.47 0.55 0.24 0.39 0.36 0.18 0.43 0.21 0.25 0.20 0.08 0.70 0.27 0.50 0.80 0.10 0.28 0.03 0.28 0.67 0.08 0.22 0.83 0.01 0.46 0.10 0.12 0.26 0.02 0.22 0.08 0.37 0.46 0.14 1.32 0.58 0.21 0.17 0.16 0.00 0.27 0.50 0.23 0.25 0.29 0.22 0.16 0.86 0.57 0.46
0.10 0.74 0.37 0.38 0.60 0.72 0.57 0.43 0.28 0.15 0.46 0.55 0.27 0.38 0.15 0.15 0.66 0.37 0.82 1.24 0.19 0.38 0.18 0.64 0.52 0.18 0.48 0.51 0.10 0.25 0.27 0.16 1.27 0.47 0.21 0.42 0.10 0.70 0.30 1.06 0.33 0.53 0.25 0.21 0.02 0.48 0.75 0.20 0.24 0.21 0.37 0.29 0.93 0.66 0.44
0.19 0.40 0.35 0.65 0.87 0.84 0.62 0.33 0.00 0.24 0.63 0.52 0.14 1.07 0.30 0.82 0.43 0.48 0.60 1.28 0.38 0.28 0.53 0.80 0.91 0.42 0.50 0.58 0.70 0.17 0.19 0.32 2.08 0.48 0.47 0.34 0.47 0.70 0.66 1.10 0.50 0.46 0.35 0.22 0.32 0.12 0.67 0.36 0.44 0.42 0.47 0.28 1.95 0.51 0.55
Institution (State)
a(1),
∆Pubs/[no./(yr fac)]
Incr Pubs (%)
1996–2005
(3)–(1) (2)–(1)
(3)–(2)
(3)/(1)
IN Pubs
0.11 –0.53 –0.01 0.50 0.36 0.37 0.07 0.10 –0.39 –0.12 0.45 0.10 –0.08 0.82 0.10 0.74 –0.28 0.21 0.10 0.48 0.28 0.00 0.51 0.53 0.25 0.35 0.28 –0.25 0.69 –0.30 0.09 0.20 1.81 0.46 0.25 0.26 0.10 0.24 0.52 –0.22 –0.08 0.25 0.18 0.06 0.32 –0.15 0.17 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.25 0.12 1.09 –0.06 0.09
0.09 –0.34 –0.02 0.27 0.27 0.12 0.05 –0.09 –0.28 0.09 0.17 –0.03 –0.13 0.69 0.15 0.67 –0.23 0.10 –0.22 0.03 0.19 –0.10 0.36 0.16 0.39 0.25 0.02 0.07 0.60 –0.08 –0.08 0.16 0.80 0.01 0.26 –0.08 0.37 0.00 0.36 0.04 0.18 –0.08 0.10 0.01 0.31 –0.35 –0.08 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.10 –0.01 1.02 –0.15 0.11
144 –57 –3 333 71 80 12 40 –100 –34 252 23 –35 335 50 884 –39 78 20 60 275 –1 2033 191 37 460 125 –30 4800 –64 86 164 689 2317 116 311 28 53 378 –16 –13 118 104 39 — –55 34 53 75 42 118 75 128 –11 19
0.68 0.69 0.67 0.82 0.66 0.74 0.70 0.67 0.42 0.68 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.83 0.71 0.95 0.76 0.58 0.87 0.77 0.40 0.46 0.72 0.77 0.45 0.48 0.56 0.64 0.95 0.33 0.62 0.42 0.95 0.50 0.61 0.88 0.61 0.91 0.45 0.66 0.80 0.34 0.56 0.78 0.63 0.56 0.69 0.72 0.56 0.42 0.69 0.71 0.79 0.85 0.50
0.02 –0.19 0.01 0.23 0.09 0.25 0.02 0.19 –0.11 –0.21 0.28 0.13 0.05 0.13 –0.05 0.07 –0.04 0.10 0.32 0.44 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.37 –0.15 0.10 0.26 –0.32 0.09 –0.22 0.17 0.04 1.01 0.45 –0.01 0.33 –0.27 0.24 0.16 –0.26 –0.25 0.32 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.20 0.25 –0.03 –0.01 –0.08 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.09 –0.03
No. of Abstb/ Pubs/ Abstb [no./(yr fac)] Abst 28 12 29 33 19 19 27 9 41 45 66 7 10 52 15 14 90 9 78 128 10 37 28 121 19 89 58 23 31 22 35 7 31 6 7 19 30 10 14 38 8 4 270 9 25 9 17 19 66 20 19 78 39 18 21
0.35 0.17 0.60 0.69 0.34 0.48 0.28 0.13 0.64 0.70 1.38 0.10 0.16 1.08 0.23 0.35 2.81 0.28 0.98 1.78 0.16 0.46 0.58 1.89 0.34 2.23 0.73 0.26 0.65 0.31 0.63 0.15 0.48 0.13 0.13 0.34 0.38 0.16 0.22 0.59 0.50 0.07 3.38 0.11 0.35 0.09 0.21 0.34 0.75 0.23 0.34 0.65 0.41 0.19 0.33
0.54 2.40 0.58 0.95 2.57 1.77 2.19 2.67 0.00 0.34 0.46 5.37 0.88 0.98 1.28 2.34 0.15 1.69 0.62 0.72 2.40 0.61 0.91 0.42 2.69 0.19 0.69 2.23 1.08 0.55 0.30 2.17 4.28 3.87 3.77 1.01 1.25 4.48 3.03 1.85 1.00 6.40 0.10 1.96 0.93 1.42 3.15 1.05 0.58 1.84 1.39 0.43 4.80 2.71 1.68
(2), (3) refer to the 1976–1985, 1986–1995, and 1996–2005 decades, respectively. bData for the abstracts are for the years 1998–2005.
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 86 No. 7 July 2009 • Journal of Chemical Education
877
Research: Science and Education
which included data from 104 private and 32 public, primarily undergraduate institutions. This report noted that although there was a dramatic increase in student involvement in research from the 1980s to 2000 there was a “sense that the number of peer-reviewed publications was declining and being replaced by a growth in student presentations…” (6). The report also states that, in general, undergraduate institutions during the period 1986–2000 applied little pressure to major funding agencies such as Research Corporation, NSF, and PRF, but that at the same time departmental and institutional funds (especially from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute) were increasingly used to support research-related activities (6). To test the hypothesis that student presentations may be functioning as a surrogate for peer-reviewed publications, we obtained the number of conference “publications” (abstracts) using the document field of SciFinder Scholar from 1998–2005 for each institution in Table 1. (SciFinder Scholar began systematically indexing ACS national meeting abstracts in 1998 and also includes some non-ACS conference abstracts.) The number of conference abstracts was then divided by the number of years (8) and the number of faculty members for each institution. Finally, the ratio of publications/(yr fac) to conference abstracts/(yr fac) was determined. This ratio ranges from 0.00 to 6.40 with a median of 1.28. When the institutions are ranked by publications∙(yr fac), the average of the ratios (publications∙abstracts) above the median number of publications∙(yr fac) is 2.17, while the average ratio below the median (institutions with lower publications per year-faculty) is 1.23. Thus, it appears that, in general, the more productive institutions are in producing papers, the less significance they place on conference presentations. It is not possible to determine from these data the extent to which presentations are coauthored by students. The 1987 survey (2) utilized the third edition of the CUR Directory to obtain the number of publications coauthored by students for the top 11 institutions in number of publications for the period 1980–1985 and concluded that it seems that “the most prolific institutions produce the bulk of their publications by utilizing either collaborators off-campus, postdoctoral assistants, or author papers individually”. Because the CUR directories are no longer available, we obtained the fraction of articles from each institution that listed the faculty member from the home institution as the first author or corresponding author. These data are given in Table 1 (IN Pubs). Clearly this number can be interpreted in a variety of ways and it is true that the first author is not always the lead author of a study, but we have used it as a proxy for the number of articles resulting from research performed on campus. The measure IN Pubs for 1996–2005 has a range of 0.33–0.95 and a composite average of 0.66. (For the 1986–1995 period, the average IN Pubs is 0.65 with a range of 0–1.00.) When the institutions are sorted by publications∙(yr fac) for 1996–2005 the top 15 institutions have an average percentage of 0.73 IN Pubs, while the bottom 15 have an average of 0.61 IN Pubs. Based upon this admittedly imperfect measure, it appears that much of the research over the last decade for most institutions included in this study is done on campus, presumably with students, and that “undergraduate” research involves students perhaps slightly more so at the more prolific institutions. The conclusion that publication rates have increased over the past three decades at many undergraduate institutions is at odds with a recent NSF report prompted by “evidence that the 878
growth in the number of U.S. articles, which had continued for more than two decades, began to slow in the 1990s even though research and development funds, research personnel, and similar research inputs continued to grow” (5). The NSF report finds that “peer-reviewed articles remain the major vehicle by which research findings are validated and scientists obtain credit for their contributions” and that there is little or no evidence that factors such as institutional demands have affected publications rates. According to the NSF report, a number of factors may contribute to the slowing of publication rates: (a) the time required for and the difficulty in securing funding, (b) the possibility that U.S. researchers are increasingly committed to quality rather than quantity of publications, and (c) the possibility that “integrative” collaborations may require a greater time to produce publications (relative to “complementary” collaborations that probably increase the number of publications). Because of the increase in the number of collaborative research efforts, the last factor may be the most significant, but there is little evidence to support the belief that certain types of collaboration lead to lower publication rates (5). At undergraduate institutions it seems that many of the ingredients for increased research productivity exist and that the faculty at undergraduate institutions, at least those sampled in this survey, are on average more productive now than 20–30 years ago. It is our hope that our collective commitment to scholarship is derived not only from our belief that research is a useful enterprise for undergraduates but also from a desire to explore the unknown and understand the nature of matter. To the extent that this desire is deeply-rooted or can be nurtured in us and our new hires, we can maintain scholarship as a truly significant part of our lives and our profession. Acknowledgments The authors are indebted to Alan Caniglia and Dale Riordan (Franklin & Marshall College), Michael Doyle (University of Maryland), Joseph Grzybowski (Gettysburg College), David Lewis (Connecticut College), Frank Mallory (Bryn Mawr College), and Joseph Sherma (Lafayette College) for helpful comments. The authors are also indebted to an anonymous reviewer whose comments were transformative. Literature Cited Spencer, J. N.; Yoder, C. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 780–786. Yoder, C. H. Spencer, J. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 163–164. Spencer, J. N. Yoder, C. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 146–147. NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates. WebCASPAR Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Data System. http://caspar. nsf.gov/index.jsp (accessed Feb 2009). 5. Bell, R. K.; Hill, D.; Lehming, R. F. The Changing Research and Publication Environment in American Research Universities. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srs07204/ (accessed Feb 2009). 6. Academic Excellence : The Role of Research in the Physical Sciences at Undergraduate Institutions; Doyle, M. P., Ed.; Research Corporation: Tucson, AZ, 2000.
1. 2. 3. 4.
Supporting JCE Online Material
http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2009/Jul/abs876.html Abstract and keywords Full text (PDF) with links to cited URLs and JCE articles
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 86 No. 7 July 2009 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
