View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Economics, Işık University, Istanbul, Turkey
  • 2 Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak, 34469 Istanbul, Turkey
Restricted access

Abstract

In academia, the term “inbreeding” refers to a situation wherein PhDs are employed in the very same institution that trained them during their doctoral studies. Academic inbreeding has a negative perception on the account that it damages both scientific effectiveness and productivity. In this article, the effect of inbreeding on scientific effectiveness is investigated through a case study. This problem is addressed by utilizing Hirsch index as a reliable metric of an academic's scientific productivity. Utilizing the dataset, constructed with academic performance indicators of individuals from the Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering Departments, of the Turkish Technical Universities, we demonstrate that academic inbreeding has a negative impact on apparent scientific effectiveness through a negative binomial model. This model appears to be the most suitable one for the dataset which is a type of count data. We report chi-square statistics and likelihood ratio test for the parameter alpha. According to the chi-square statistics the model is significant as a whole. The incidence rate ratio for the variable “inbreeding” is estimated to be 0.11 and this ratio tells that, holding all the other factors constant, for the inbred faculty, the h-index is about 89% lower when compared to the non-inbred faculty. Furthermore, there exists negative and statistically significant correlation with an individual's productivity and the percentage of inbred faculty members at the very same department. Excessive practice of inbreeding adversely affects the overall productivity. Decision makers are urged to limit this practice to a minimum in order to foster a vibrant research environment. Furthermore, it is also found that scientific productivity of an individual decreases towards the end of his scientific career.

  • Baldock, C, Ma, RMS, Orton, CG 2009 The h-index is the best measure of a scientist's research productivity. Medical Physics 36:10431045 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cameron, AC, Trivedi, PK 1998 Regression analysis of count data, Econometric Society Monographs No. 30 Cambridge University Press Cambridge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Glanzel, W 2006 On the opportunities and limitations of the h-index [In Chinese]. Science Focus 1:1011.

  • Greene, WH 2003 Econometric analysis Prentice Hall New Jersey.

  • Greenwood, M, Yule, GU 1920 An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 83:255279 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hamermesh, D. S., & Khan G.A. (2009). Markets for reputation: Evidence on quality and quantity in academe. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, paper no: 15527.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hirsch, JE 2005 An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:1656916572 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Horta, H, Veloso, FM, Grediaga, R 2010 Navel gazing: Academic inbreeding and scientific productivity. Management Science 56:414429 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jaffe, A 1989 Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review 79:957970.

  • Jin, BH 2006 h-index: An evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus 1:89.

  • Jin, BH, Liang, L, Rousseau, R, Egghe, L 2007 The r and ar indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin 52:855863 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knetter, MM, Prusa, TJ 2003 Macroeconomic factors and anti-dumping filings: Evidence from four countries. Journal of International Economics 61:117 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lazaridis, T 2009 Ranking university departments using the mean h index. Scientometrics 82:211216 .

  • Long, SL 1997 Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables SAGE Publications Thousand Oaks, CA.

  • Long, JS, Freese, J 2003 Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata STATA Press College Station, TX.

  • Nelson, RR 1993 National innovation system? A comparative analysis Oxford University Press New York.

  • Panaretos, J, Malesios, C 2009 Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices. Scientometrics 81:635670 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rosenberg, N, Nelson, RR 1994 American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy 23:323348 .