This paper presents an analysis of three modes of assessing academic scholars’ productivity, based on their education history and their publication output. The sample consists of the career paths of 231 authors from the Global South that includes the places of their BA, MA and Ph.D. education and their production in terms of the number of their Scopus-indexed articles. The analysis found that there is no general rule determines that Global North education would result in higher productivity, and the paper will argue that favoring productive authors without Global North education would be not just ethical but also deliberately reasonable in the restricted sense of instrumental reason.

中文翻译：

---

缩小差距：通过权衡学术资本来缩小全球北方-全球南方偏向衡量学术成就的程度

本文根据学者的教育历史和出版物产出，对三种评估学者生产率的模式进行了分析。该样本包括来自全球南方的231位作者的职业道路，包括其文学学士，文学硕士和博士学位的职位。Scopus索引文章的数量进行教育和生产。分析发现，没有通用的规则可以确定Global North教育将导致更高的生产率，并且本文将辩称，青睐没有Global North教育的富有生产性的作者不仅是道德的，而且在工具理性的有限意义上也是有意合理的。