New research shows that scholars who regularly publish within a similar range of journals tend to get cited more, suggesting that a more focused approach to publishing may lead to greater recognition and impact. In other words, when it comes to scholarly publishing, consistency and coherence may be more important than variety. There are implications for academics, especially early-career scholars considering their long-term trajectories.
Let’s imagine a scholar named Dr. Jane Smith, a social scientist who studies various aspects of human behavior and decision-making. Over the course of her career, Dr. Smith publishes in a wide range of journals that span multiple disciplines:
- She starts by publishing in psychology journals like Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Psychological Science.
- Then she shifts to economics outlets like Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization and Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics.
- Next, she publishes in computer science venues focused on human-computer interaction, such as CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems and ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction.
- She also occasionally publishes in management journals like Administrative Science Quarterly and Journal of Management.
- Later in her career, she begins publishing in broader science journals like PLOS ONE and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
According to the findings of this study, Dr. Smith’s trajectory, which involves publishing in periodicals across psychology, economics, computer science, management, and general science, would likely be characterized by a “high radius of gyration” and suggest she may be exploring disparate areas of the scholarly landscape rather than developing a coherent body of work within a set of related outlets.
The article’s results would predict that this broad, cross-disciplinary publishing strategy may be associated with lower citation impact compared to a scholar who focuses on a more proximal set of periodicals, even if that set spans traditional disciplinary boundaries. Of course, this is a hypothetical example, and individual results may vary, but it illustrates the type of publishing trajectory that the study suggests may be less impactful.
But what about interdisciplinarity?
This finding seems to be at odds with the growing emphasis on interdisciplinary, convergent research in academia. Many universities and funding agencies are increasingly encouraging scholars to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries and pursue research that integrates insights from multiple fields. At first glance, the study’s results might suggest that this push for interdisciplinarity could be misguided.
However, it’s important to distinguish between different types of interdisciplinarity. The study found that publishing in journals that are “nearby” in the embedding space (disciplinary “home”), even if they are in different disciplinary categories, may be more effective than publishing in journals that are far removed from each other. This suggests that strategic interdisciplinarity across related fields may still be a viable strategy, even if broad, distal interdisciplinarity is less effective.
Advice for faculty
So what does this mean for faculty who are navigating the complex landscape of academic publishing? Well, it is just one study, but there are perhaps a few takeaways:
- It might be smart to focus on a coherent set of periodicals that are relevant to your research area and have a track record of publishing high-quality work.
- When considering a new journal, assess how closely related it is to the outlets you typically publish in. Aim for strategic interdisciplinarity across related fields rather than broad, distal interdisciplinarity. (Here is one strategy that can help you with that.)
- Tailor your publishing strategies to your career stage and institutional priorities. Early-career faculty may benefit from a narrower focus to build up their “h-Index,” but senior scholars may have more leeway to explore.
- Look beyond citation counts and consider other forms of scholarly impact, such as influencing policy, driving innovation, or engaging with communities.
Navigating the tension
Balancing the pressures of interdisciplinarity and strategic publishing can be challenging, but it’s not impossible. Faculty should aim to find a middle ground by publishing in a focused but flexibly defined set of periodicals that allows for some exploration while still maintaining a coherent scholarly identity. Institutions can support this by recognizing and rewarding interdisciplinary work that may not immediately garner high citation counts but still makes valuable contributions to advancing knowledge. And don’t fret on your own: reaching out and talking about your plans and concerns can help.
A pinch of salt
Although the study’s findings suggest that variety may not be the spice of scholarly life when it comes to academic publishing, it is still just one study. The analysis does not establish any causal relationships, as there may be unobserved confounding variables or reverse causality (i.e., less successful researchers may have to try different periodicals, leading to a higher radius of gyration). But consistently publishing in a strategically chosen set of related journals may be indeed be conducive to maximizing scholarly impact. By pursuing focused, “proximal interdisciplinarity” and balancing specialization with exploration, faculty may be able to cook up something that hits just the right spot in terms of career development.
