高校行政权力如何影响学术论文发表——基于“双一流”大学教育学院院长发表数据的双重差分估计

Administrative Power and Academic Productivity:A Difference-in-differences Analysis of Published Journal Articles Written by the Deans of the School of Education of“Double First-Class”Universities of China

揭示行政权力如何影响论文发表对保障科研人员学术权力具有重要意义。通过构建“双一流”大学教育学院院长和无行政职务教授论文发表的面板数据,采用准实验研究设计,借助双重差分模型,研究行政权力与论文发表之间的因果关系。结果发现:因行政权力所增加的论文发表数量为7.175篇,平均每年1.435篇;行政权力带来的论文增长主要源自与其他学者的合作,特别是非第一作者署名以及与本校学者的合作;高层次的期刊、较强的学科实力能够削弱行政权力的影响。进一步分析发现,社会资本是行政权力促进论文发表的关键所在,人力资本和信号效应对此问题的解释不彰。为限制行政权力,高校可建立用于教师评价的期刊“负面清单”;同时,应强化学科建设,努力提升学科体系化程度;学术期刊也需坚守以学术贡献为准绳的录用标准。

This paper is to explore the correlation between administrative power and academic productivity.Adopting a quasi-experimental design,it presents a difference-in-differences analysis of panel data about published journal articles written by both the administrators(i.e.Deans)and faculty members of the School of Education in"Double First-Class Universities"of China.It is found that compared with faculty members,those Deans published 7.175 more journal articles per person,1.435 more articles each year.However,so far as high ranking academic journals and well-established academic disciplines are concerned,administrative power turns out to have much less impact on academic productivity.It is also found that administrators seem to promote their academic productivity via the acquisition of social capital rather than human capital.Their increased academic productivity mainly comes from co-authorship with colleagues or lead authors,not just due to so-call signal effects.To limit the impact of administrative power upon academic productivity,higher education institutions could work out a"negative list"or label those predatory journals as unacceptable for teacher evaluation.On the other hand,academic journals should uphold high standards,regarding academic contribution as the only criteria for manuscript acceptance.