Is age a good predictor of research productivity?
- 1 July 1982
- journal article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Australian Psychologist
- Vol. 17 (2) , 129-139
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00050068208255929
Abstract
The research productivity of psychologists holding appointment in Australian universities was established at two times of measurement across groups defined with respect to chronological age and date of birth. The design allowed cross‐sectional gradients to be contrasted over times of measurement, and longitudinal gradients to be compared across cohorts. Psychologists aged 26–35 years in 1970 showed no decline in publication rate between 1968–1970 and 1978–1980, while psychologists aged more than 35 years in 1970 showed a drop in research output over the 10‐year period. However, a person's publication rate in 1978–1980 was better predicted by their past productivity (publication rate in 1968–1970) than by their age. These results are discussed in the context of factors that affect research productivity, as well as changes that will occur in the age distribution of Australian academics over the next 20 years.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Age and AchievementPublished by Walter de Gruyter GmbH ,2017
- Research productivity, university revenue, and scholarly impact (citations) of 169 British, Canadian and United States universities (1977)Scientometrics, 1981
- New Academic Positions: The Outlook in Europe and North AmericaScience, 1981
- Impending crises for psychology departments in australian universitiesAustralian Psychologist, 1981
- Citation statistics for psychologists in australian universities: 1975-1977Australian Psychologist, 1979
- Age and Scientific PerformanceAmerican Journal of Sociology, 1979
- The psychologist's most creative years.American Psychologist, 1966
- Little Science, Big SciencePublished by Columbia University Press ,1963
- The age decrement in outstanding scientific contributions: Fact or artifact?American Psychologist, 1958
- Age and Achievement: A CritiqueJournal of Gerontology, 1956