What are academic incentives? How do they compare to incentives for policymakers and practitioners?
A close practitioner colleague recently asked me: “What is it with researchers and their passion for papers? It’s just a piece of paper!” This question got me thinking more deeply about academic incentives and how to convey the inner workings of the academic ecosystem to an audience that might be less familiar with them.
What is a paper and what determines its value to an academic audience?
Just as paper money has value because others are willing to accept it to exchange goods, research papers have value because others are willing to accept them to exchange ideas.
Papers, which aim to codify an interesting insight and convey its credibility, are the prime currency of academics. A paper carries most weight when it is frequently cited by other papers. A paper’s value for one’s academic career is also linked to the status of the journal that eventually publishes it.
The ‘top’ journals are typically those with the highest 'impact factor' – the number of citations a typical paper in a journal receives. In some disciplines, such as economics, a clear hierarchy exists, such as the top 5 journals.[1] For general science, top journals typically include Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). These journals often have the highest impact factor, although recent evidence from economics suggests a growing disconnect between the status of established hierarchies and a paper’s influence, with many non-top five papers accumulating substantial citations and influence.
To publish well, papers have to make a strong case for how their insight advances the body of knowledge. This advance typically includes a novel and substantial insight which speaks to the core questions in an academic discipline. Academics also have to prove that the insight is valid and robust, using compelling theory and rigorous empirical methodologies.
All papers pass through peer review in order to be published, with academic peers expressing their view on the value of a paper, which journal editors then take into account when deciding whether to reject, request a revision, or accept a paper to their journal.
The academic ecosystem of papers which get published and then cited generates an ever-expanding body of scientific knowledge where ideas get exchanged and, ideally, improved.
Incentive structures: comparing research vs. policy and practice
The incentive structures for academics differ from incentives for policymakers and practitioners in a number of important ways, summarised in Table 1.
- Researchers are incentivised to produce papers, whereas policymakers and practitioners produce programmes.
- Researchers aim to generate interesting insights that are novel and general, while in policy and practice delivering consistent impact in local contexts is first order.
- Researchers seek insights that are precisely proven, while policymakers and practitioners are comfortable with approximate accuracy.
- Researchers prioritise perspectives that are external and objective, while policymakers and practitioners prioritise embedded and first-hand experience.
- Researchers aim to address long-running questions, while policymakers and practitioners aim to meet the urgency of the day.
- Researchers value publication and citation whereas policymakers and practitioners prioritise utility and publicity.
- All worlds always need funding and great people.
Table 1: Comparing incentive structures of research relative to policy and practice
| Incentive Structure | Research | Policy and Practice |
| Product | Papers | Programmes |
| Purpose | Insight, general-interest, novel | Impact, locally relevant, repeatable |
| Proof | Precision | Accuracy |
| Who | External, objective | Embedded, first-hand |
| Timing | Years | Now |
| Valuation | Publication and citation | Utility and publicity |
| Resources | Funding and people | Funding and people |
The worlds of research and policy also vary on other dimensions, and in their working styles.
These dynamics mean that papers that are published well do not always prioritise policy impact, and papers with high impact might not always publish well. For example, a paper replicating a prior idea in a new context might be considered less academically publishable, but can have substantial policy relevance, proving a programme works in the context of interest for the key decision-makers in that setting. While publication potential and policy impact do not always coincide, a growing focus on addressing the 'reproducibility crisis' and the 'science of scale' are helping to close some of these gaps.
Can incentives align?
Academia can produce profound insight and shape paradigms and the state of knowledge. These types of insights can shift deeply held beliefs and shape policy in significant and long-run ways. For example, evidence that free bed nets for malaria prevention increased usage substantially, and did not lead to misuse – a common critique of free health products – contributed to global breakthroughs in malaria prevention. Examples like this abound, including evidence on the importance of human capital for long-run economic development, among many others.
At the same time, a common critique of academia is that the typical research paper can at times be divorced from real-world results.
Yet researchers are increasingly connecting the dots to policy and practice. Some journals, disciplines, and universities are increasingly incentivising research which is more closely aligned with policy impact. For example, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the UK, launched in 2014, explicitly incentivises policy and practice impacts when allocating funding to universities. Some economics journals have launched special issues on scaling. Several journals, such as Science, have sections dedicated to publishing and communicating scientific findings to policy audiences.
Moreover, practitioners and policymakers, not just academics in universities, are increasingly conducting primary research of their own, ensuring it is focused directly on their policy priorities. For example, both research and operational teams at the World Bank frequently publish policy-relevant findings. Government leaders in multiple countries have launched evidence labs and strengthened internal research departments to commission research on policy priorities. Implementing organisations are also increasingly running randomised A/B tests to optimise programming on an ongoing basis. We need more of this type of embedded research in implementing institutions, which can help close the gap between research and practice.
While the worlds of research, policy, and practice sometimes serve distinct purposes, incentives can also be deliberately aligned, connecting rigour with reality.