Authorship, citations, acknowledgments and visibility in social media: Symbolic capital in the multifaceted reward system of science
Abstract
The reward system of science is undergoing significant changes, as traditional indicators compete with initiatives that offer novel means of disseminating and assessing scholarly impact. This article considers a number of aspects of this reward system, including authorship, citations, acknowledgements and the growing use of social media platforms by academics, with an eye towards identifying contemporary issues relating to scholarly communication practices, as understood through the perspectives of Bourdieu’s symbolic capital and Merton’s recognition framework. The article posits that, while scientific capital remains the foundation upon which the reward system of science is built, this system is revealing itself to be more and more multifaceted, extremely complex, and facing increasing tension between its traditional means of evaluation and the potential of new indicators in the digital era. The article presents an extended literature review, as well as recommendations for further consideration and empirical research. A better understanding of the perceptions of academics would be necessary to properly assess the effects of these new indicators on scholarly communication practices and the reward system of science.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The 'publish or perish' attitude stimulates productivity of researchers but creates a bias towards quantity, often overlooking quality.
“this 'publish or perish' attitude, on the one hand, stimulates the productivity of researchers, but, on the other, creates a bias towards quantity, often overlooking quality [2,3,6-8,44,81,163,260,263,284-288].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [263]
WoS and Scopus data are questionable for Social Sciences & Humanities because these disciplines are clearly underrepresented in the DBs.
“The same can be said about the use of WoS and Scopus data in Social Sciences & Humanities, since these disciplines are clearly underrepresented in the DBs [5,44,47,88,91,163,263].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [263]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 109 · Cited by 91
- Authors
- Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, A., Haustein, S., Costas, R., Mongeon, P., Quan-Haase, A., Bowman, T. D., Pecoskie, J., Tsou, A., & Larivière, V.
- Affiliations
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Leiden University (NL)
- Faculty of Information and Media Studies/Sociology, Western University, Canada
- Wayne State University (US)
- Independent Researcher, Ontario, Canada
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Desrochers, Nadine
- ORCID
- Venue
- Social Science Information
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-02
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 223-248
- ISSN
- 0539-0184 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7412
- OpenAlex
- W2790320647
- Cited by
- 91
- References
- 109
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 7.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Science Information (publishedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Papyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (430-2014-0617, R3603A13)
- Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (G-2014325)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- authorship, citation practices, acknowledgment, academic social media, symbolic capital, Pierre Bourdieu, scientific capital, research evaluation indicators, scholarly impact
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review