> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
News
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Johns Hopkins and Texas A&M Were the Least Productive Research Universities, Study Finds

By  Jeffrey Brainard
May 22, 2011

Researchers at the Johns Hopkins and Texas A&M Universities were among the least productive of any at large academic institutions from 1989 to 2004, measured by the money spent on their research per paper they published, according to a study to be presented at an academic conference this week.

The University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University were among the most productive.

By the same measure, private research universities were more efficient on average than public ones, and institutions with medical schools produced more papers than those without.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Researchers at the Johns Hopkins and Texas A&M Universities were among the least productive of any at large academic institutions from 1989 to 2004, measured by the money spent on their research per paper they published, according to a study to be presented at an academic conference this week.

The University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University were among the most productive.

By the same measure, private research universities were more efficient on average than public ones, and institutions with medical schools produced more papers than those without.

What’s more, the collective productivity of 72 of the nation’s largest research universities dropped significantly in the late 1990s and has not recovered, according to the study’s author, Jeffrey M. Litwin, an associate dean at George Brown College, in Toronto.

Mr. Litwin is to present his findings on Tuesday at the annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, which will take place in that city.

ADVERTISEMENT

The study appears to be the first of its kind to rank institutions by this measure, which compares a university’s total research spending from all sources against the number of papers its researchers publish in scholarly journals. Other prominent methods of evaluating research institutions, like the one released last year by the National Research Council, have considered, as one of many factors, a different but related yardstick—the number of papers published per faculty member.

However, at least one statistician disagrees with the spending-per-paper approach. Mr. Litwin relied on data that are “inadequate” to evaluate universities’ research productivity accurately, said Scott L. Zeger, vice provost for research at Johns Hopkins.

In an interview, Mr. Litwin called his method an improvement over counts of publications per faculty member. That approach is problematic given the “vast differences in outputs per capita across disciplines, and even within individual departments,” said Mr. Litwin, who is executive director of the college’s capital campaign and holds an M.B.A. and a doctorate in higher-education management.

Figures on research expenditures offer a way to smooth the variation and produce a single measure reflecting faculty efforts on research that is comparable across institutions, Mr. Litwin said. “I think it’s quite a bit more useful for studies in a financial or economic context,” he said.

A Drop in Productivity

For his study, Mr. Litwin examined expenditures data reported by institutions to the National Science Foundation from 1989 to 2004. He examined counts of published studies compiled by Thomson Reuters, a news and information company. His results are based on 72 institutions that reported the highest research expenditures and that had comparable data on publications. The median expenditure per paper was $72,020.

ADVERTISEMENT

He acknowledged that his study raised several questions that it did not answer, which he says merit further study. One was a jump in average expenditures per paper among all institutions, from $67,000 in 1996 to $85,000 in 2002.Mr. Litwin said neither he nor his colleagues had an explanation. Nevertheless, he said, “If you have a decline in productivity, the government isn’t getting the same return for its investment, assuming the quality of publications has been consistent,” he said, “and that’s meaningful.”

Mr. Litwin conceded that his suggested approach had methodological limitations. The NSF figures on research expenditures fail to capture all of a faculty member’s time spent on research because they reflect only research that is separately budgeted by the institution, such as that financed by external sponsors like the federal government. At research institutions, faculty members typically split their time between teaching and research, but the portion of their base pay that represents compensation for their research was not captured in the NSF figures.

Mr. Zeger, who has overseen research at Hopkins since 2008 and whose specialty is biostatistics, suggested some other limitations of Mr. Litwin’s measure.

Hopkins’s designation as the least-productive institution may reflect that about half of the university’s reported expenditures were attributable to its research affiliate, the Applied Physics Laboratory, he said. (Including the money from the physics laboratory, Hopkins led all institutions in 2009 with total research expenditures of $1.86-billion.)

Scientists in the Applied Physics Laboratory do work financed by the U.S. Defense Department, and so not all of their scholarly work would necessarily show up in the Thomson Reuters counts of publications, Mr. Zeger said.

ADVERTISEMENT

What’s more, some institutions may have looked more productive simply because the mix of academic disciplines there was skewed toward fields, like genetics, in which scholars typically publish a lot of papers, Mr. Zeger suggested.

Mr. Litwin’s paper acknowledges this point by suggesting that individual institutions compare themselves against peers that have a similar mix of research expenditures by discipline, For example, the University of Pittsburgh and Duke University were similar in disciplinary mix but different in expenditures per paper: $61,740 at Pittsburgh versus $81,600 at Duke in the year 2000.

Counts of publications “are too simplistic to capture the richness of what we mean by research productivity,” Mr. Zeger aid. To evaluate that requires keeping an eye on faculty members’ volume of publication but also making professional judgments about the importance of research results, he said.


Most and Least Productive Research Universities by Spending per Paper, 1989-2004

Research expenditures per publication
Most productive
U. of Pennsylvania $28,547
Harvard U. $31,231
U. of Chicago $42,209
Indiana U. $48,851
Boston U. $49,593
U. of Virginia $50,042
U. of California at Santa Barbara $53,471
U. of Pittsburgh $53,906
Washington U. in St. Louis $54,844
New York U. $56,037
Least productive
Johns Hopkins U. $185,811
Texas A&M U. $128,269
Carnegie Mellon U. $118,344
North Carolina State U. $114,090
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $110,349
U. at Buffalo $108,839
Oregon State U. $109,086
U. of Georgia $103,619
Colorado State U. $100,291
U. of California at San Diego $96,639
Source: Jeffrey M. Litwin, George Brown College

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Jeffrey Brainard
Jeffrey Brainard managed The Chronicle of Higher Education’s data and statistics unit beginning in 2008. He was responsible for the collection and analysis of data and graphics for The Chronicle’s recurring and one-time news projects, including its annual survey of compensation for college chief executives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin