Closing the door behind: metric-based research evaluation systems and gatekeeping towards young researchers

Abstract The competitive nature of academia has led to the establishment of rigorous criteria by decision-makers for evaluating researchers’ performances. Title and tenure systems have been implemented based on these specific criteria. This study aims to examine how these criteria are fulfilled, identify which groups of researchers are required to meet these performance indicators, and assess the extent to which they do so. Data were collected from 98 academics in the field of library and information science via the Web of Science and the main academic platform of the Council of Higher Education, Turkey. A total of 1641 articles and 999 books or book chapters were subjected to analysis. The findings suggest that early-career researchers are disproportionately compelled to adhere to the “publish or perish” paradigm and are expected to meet higher performance expectations. When normalized for years of experience, the results indicate that professors exhibit the lowest publication output, while faculty members with a Ph.D. who hold the title of Associate Professor demonstrate the highest output. While this study primarily focuses on comparing the fulfillment of criteria between decision-makers and early-career researchers, future research will explore the observed inflation in book and book chapter publications within the same field.