Individual performance in a collective publication environment

Abstract

Scientific publishing is increasingly taking place in a collective, networked form, while the institutional frameworks for evaluating individual scientific performance remain fundamentally based on individualistic logics. This structural difference results in significant interpretive uncertainties, especially in the case of stable publication collaborations, where individual contributions are difficult to separate from the effects of collective functioning. This study, using a theoretical-interpretive approach, argues that the crisis discourses on scientific performance are not primarily normative or moral problems, but rather a persistent tension between the network structure of knowledge production and the logics of evaluation. A network-based interpretation of publication collaborations is not an alternative to, but rather a complement to, traditional evaluation tools, and may contribute to a more context-sensitive interpretation of individual performance.