Reflecting on Motivations: How Reasons to Publish affect Research Behaviour in Astronomy

TL;DR

This paper investigates how different motivations to publish influence research behavior in astronomy, revealing that external pressures can increase publication pressure and perceived misconduct, highlighting evaluation gaps in scientific incentives.

Contribution

It compares autonomous and controlled motivations in astronomy research, demonstrating how external evaluation pressures impact publication behavior and research integrity.

Findings

Controlled motivation increases publication pressure

Publication pressure correlates with perceived misconduct

Evaluation gaps influence research behavior

Abstract

Recent research in the field of reflexive metrics have studied the emergence and consequences of evaluation gaps in science. The concept of evaluation gaps captures potential discrepancies between what researchers value about their research, in particular research quality, and what metrics measure. As a result, scientists may experience anomie and adopt innovative ways to cope. These often value quantity over quality and may even compromise research integrity. A consequence of such gaps may therefore be research misconduct and a decrease in research quality. In the language of rational choice theory, an evaluation gap persists if motivational factors arising out of the internal component of an actors situation are incongruent with those arising out of the external components. The aim of this research is therefore to study and compare autonomous and controlled motivations to become an astronomer, to do research in astronomy and to publish scientific papers. Moreover, we study how these different motivational factors affect publication pressure, the experience of organisational justice and the observation of research misconduct. In summary, we find evidence for an evaluation gap and that controlled motivational factors arising from evaluation procedures based on publication record drives up publication pressure, which, in turn, was found to increase the likelihood of perceived frequency of misbehaviour.