Consensus and fragmentation in academic publication preferences

2026-02-28

AI Summary

This study investigates how disciplinary consensus and individual preferences jointly shape scholars’ journal selection in academic publishing. Drawing on an adaptive survey eliciting 163,002 pairwise comparisons of 8,044 publication venues from 3,510 tenure-track faculty in the United States, the research quantifies for the first time a consensus–fragmentation spectrum across disciplines: economics, chemistry, and physics exhibit strong consensus in publishing preferences, whereas computer science and engineering are highly fragmented. The findings reveal that journal impact factors account for only 64% of stated preferences, substantially underestimating actual choice behavior. Moreover, scholars’ submission decisions align more closely with their personal preferences than with disciplinary norms, with institutional prestige and gender exerting systematic influences on these preferences.

Technology Category

• Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Preferences
• Machine Learning: Learning Preferences or Rankings
• Application Domains: Humanities & Computational Social Science

Application Category

• Economics, Online Markets and Human Computation: The sharing economy
• Social Networks and Social Media: Computational social science
• User Modeling, Personalization and Recommendation: Psychology-informed user models and recommender systems

Abstract

Academic publishing requires solving a collective coordination problem: among thousands of possible publication venues, which deserve a community's attention? A clear consensus helps scholars allocate attention, match submissions to appropriate outlets, and evaluate scholars for hiring and promotion. Yet preferences are not centrally coordinated--they emerge within each field over time. Here we ask whether all fields have arrived at similar solutions to this coordination problem, and whether preferences vary systematically with individual characteristics. Using an adaptive survey of 3,510 US tenure-track faculty yielding 163,002 pairwise comparisons across 8,044 venues, we show that fields occupy a wide spectrum of coordination. Economics, Chemistry, and Physics exhibit strong consensus, with respondents agreeing on elite venues and accurately predicting one another's choices. Computer Science and Engineering show fragmented preferences distributed across hundreds of outlets with minimal overlap. Within fields, preferences correlate with institutional prestige--faculty at elite institutions prefer higher-ranked venues--and with gender, as men prefer higher-ranked venues than women even after accounting for prestige and career stage. Scholars realize their personal preferences more successfully than their respective fields' consensus preferences, indicating that heterogeneity, not just selective hierarchy, shapes publishing outcomes. Journal Impact Factors explain only 64% of preference choices, systematically undervaluing what fields actually prefer. These results quantify how publication preferences vary across the structural diversity of academic fields.

Problem

• academic publishing
• consensus
• fragmentation
• publication preferences
• coordination problem

Innovation

• adaptive survey
• publication preferences
• consensus fragmentation
• pairwise comparisons
• journal impact factor