A critical commentary on the recent study of academic inbreeding of young researchers

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733325000691 

Regarding the recently published paper in the Elsevier journal Research, "Academic Inbreeding and Productivity of STEM Early Career Researchers in Different Environments" I feel compelled to express my disappointment with the emphasis placed on productivity. In my view, this approach risks oversimplifying the complex issue of academic inbreeding.

The selection of inbred researchers often results from flawed, and at times corrupt, recruitment processes. Academics appointed through such mechanisms are less likely to uphold the ethical standards that were once central—and remain essential—to the integrity of academia and the advancement of science https://19-pacheco-torgal-19.blogspot.com/2024/07/how-scientific-community-can-identify.html

Moreover, Horta et al. (2021) have demonstrated that the research agendas pursued by inbred faculty members are frequently not oriented toward genuine scientific discovery or groundbreaking innovation. These goals typically require a greater tolerance for uncertainty and risk—qualities that inbred academics frequently lack. https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2021/10/study-on-academic-inbreeding-involving.html

My own country offers a telling example. Portugal, with a remarkably high proportion of inbred faculty, has achieved impressive productivity indicators. As early as 2012, the number of Scopus-indexed publications per million inhabitants exceeded Germany’s; by 2024, it was 50% higher. Yet, this output has not translated into corresponding scientific distinction: Portugal has not produced a single Nobel Prize laureate in the past 50 years, while Germany has received several. Similarly, Portugal continues to lag in high-impact publications and in the number of highly cited researchers. https://19-pacheco-torgal-19.blogspot.com/2024/11/portugal-clear-case-study-highlighting.html

PS - I reproduce below the reply that I received from the author of the paper:

---

De: Слепых Виктория Игоревна 
Enviado: 17 de abril de 2025 09:32
Para: F. Pacheco Torgal 
Assunto: RE: Paper - "Academic Inbreeding and Productivity of STEM Early Career Researchers in Different Environments,"

 

Dear Pacheco Torgal,

 

Thank you for your attention to my article on academic inbreeding.

 

Firstly, I totally agree that bibliometric indicators have their limitations, and they poorly reflect the innovativeness of research. Other indicators should be investigated as well.

 

Secondly, it is impossible to disagree with you, that practice of academic inbreeding may be often based on non-merit principles, and related to nepotism and corruption. However, there are many other reasons for academic inbreeding.

For example:

1) low level of competition in the academic labour market due to the specificity of the system (high level of centralisation, so that many universities may have limited opportunities to attract good external candidates),

2) difficulties in recruiting external candidates because the university is located far away from all other academic organisations, or because an institute is focused on a specific narrow field, or because it is an elite university that finds it difficult to find a sufficiently qualified candidate from the outside,

3) low level of mobility due to the size of the country (as in Russia), high relocation costs, family issues,

4) or the mindset that "every sandpiper is great in his own swamp", which is quite common among Russians, and they do not feel the need to try out for other organisations or cities.

5) finally, inbreds may become researchers who are not in demand on the external academic labour market if their alma mater does not care about the quality of its personnel or cannot care about it due to lack of various resources.

 

It is not clear which of the above reasons is more widespread. Indeed, the factors of academic inbreeding are understudied. And they need further investigation.

My study only partially supports two of these reasons: inbreeding is more prevalent in more prestigious academic organisations and in regions with a poor academic labour market. My data also showed that less productive (in terms of number of Scopus-indexed papers) researchers often become inbreds in mass universities, while leading universities and research organisations tend to hire their own graduates who are more productive than those who left their alma mater (though these results are outside my recently published paper and I am still working on them). This partly supports the ideas about prestigious organisations and resource-poor organisations.

 

Each of these reasons may affect researchers’ performance in different way. It is a large task to study all these inbreeding factors, and an even greater challenge to assess the effect of inbreeding in any given case.

 

I continue to study academic inbreeding, as it is also very widely practiced in Russia. I appreciate your opinion and I would like to consider as many aspects of inbreeding as possible. I will try to address other issues that could be affected by academic inbreeding, as well as factors of this phenomenon.

 

Best regards,

Victoria Slepykh