Predetermined Faculty Searches: A Literature Map of Prevalence and Causes (Japan and the Anglophone World)

An integrative summary of 63 academic publications collected through a lightweight scoping review on searches whose successful candidate is effectively settled before the position is advertised (Japanese: dekirēsu, a fixed race; English: fake search, wired search, preselected candidate), covering both the prevalence of such searches and the mechanisms that produce them. Full bibliographic details appear in the “References” section below (with DOIs/URLs). The internal corpus with the provenance ledger is at source/review/predetermined-faculty-hiring/papers.md (repository-internal, not published). This note covers prevalence. A companion note covering only the generating mechanisms, with theoretical genealogies and counter-evidence, is When a Search Is Only a Form, and When No Search Is Held (210 sources). The seven mechanisms listed under “Why It Happens” below are taken apart there into eleven mechanisms for Q1 (hollowing) and fifteen for Q2 (avoidance). For the general account of how evaluation accumulates advantage, see the critique of meritocratic evaluationprivate. Collection ran three searches in parallel, followed by screening and one further search to recover missed items, under a protocol of zero fabrication and provenance tracking.

Survey Metadata

• Collection date: 2026-08-22 / Count: 63 (Japan 14, Anglophone 23, international comparison plus theory and law 26)
• Period: centered on 1990–2026; foundational work on academic inbreeding and organizational theory has no date limit
• Venue distribution: Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, Daigaku Ronshu, RIHE monographs (Japan); The Journal of Higher Education, American Sociological Review, American Educational Research Journal, Review of Higher Education, Higher Education Quarterly, Nature, Science Advances (Anglophone); Research in Higher Education, La Vie des Idées, Code of Federal Regulations (comparative and legal)
• Quality flags: one suspected predatory venue (publisher on Beall’s List), two non-peer-reviewed scholarly outlets, five unrefereed preprints, two items whose subject is not university faculty hiring. None were excluded; each was flagged and downgraded in relevance.

What the Search Does Not Find

Not one peer-reviewed study, in Japan or the Anglophone world, answers the question “what share of advertised faculty positions are already decided?” Searching across databases in Japanese for dekirēsu and for the hollowing-out of open recruitment, and in English for fake search, sham search, wired search, and preselected candidate, turns up no measurement of frequency.

This is not a failure of the search. It follows from the object. Nobody involved has any incentive to declare that a position was predetermined. Nothing is written into the job posting, and nothing survives in the personnel record. What remains is two facts, that a position was advertised and that someone was hired, with the interval between them undocumented.

So the literature measures what it can measure: the share of faculty hired by the institution that trained them, the share hired without any search at all, and the rating gap between internal and external applicants. None of these is the predetermination rate. Each of them is a quantity that plausibly co-varies with it, and each is the only footing on which actual numbers exist.

What the Proxies Show

Self-hire and inbreeding rates

The US figure of 9.1% comes from Wapman et al. (2022), a near-census analysis of 295,089 faculty at all 368 US PhD-granting institutions, and was confirmed in the article itself. The Japanese figure of 57.18% is Kato’s (2022) computation from School Teachers Survey microdata for assistant professors and research associates, composed of 47.00% who took their bachelor’s degree at the same institution plus 10.18% who took a graduate degree there without the bachelor’s.

The gap is six-fold. It cannot be read as “Japan is six times more closed.” The definitions differ, the populations differ, and the rank strata differ. The US number takes all ranks as its denominator; the Japanese number isolates the entry ranks. For Japanese full professors the same measure falls to 21.28% (Kato 2022).

Share of hires made without a search

At Tokyo Metropolitan University in fiscal 2021, five of the twenty-three professorial appointments came through an open search. The remaining 78.3% were internal promotions (Kato 2023a). A survey of 290 faculty at Japanese “border-free” universities reports that 48.4% were hired through an open search (Katsuragi 2018). That 48.4% is known only through Kato’s (2023a) citation; the original article could not be reached, and its definition, denominator, and survey year remain unverified.

In the United States, dual hires (the simultaneous appointment of a spouse or partner) account for 10% of all faculty. Their share of all hires rose from 3% in the 1970s to 13% in the 2000s (Schiebinger et al. 2008). Ninety-three percent of dual hires work at the same institution as their partner. This is an institutionalized non-competitive pathway in which a partner position is created without a search.

The internal-external rating gap

Internal applicants are rated about three points higher on average than external ones, and the gap survives controls for experience and licensure scores (Martinková et al. 2018). The sample is 3,474 ratings, 1,090 applicants, 137 raters, and 54 schools, making it the most direct quantitative evidence of internal-candidate advantage in the corpus. Its subject, however, is K-12 teacher hiring in US public school districts, not university faculty searches. No comparable internal-versus-external quantitative study of faculty hiring surfaced in this search.

How Far the Numbers Move with the Definition

Godechot et al. (2025) analyzed 7,889 maître de conférences appointments (2017–2024) published by the French ministry of education, and report three values for the local-hire rate. Against all appointments it is 17.9%; restricted to appointments where local and external candidates competed, 20.3%; under a narrow definition (applied within four years, same specialty, French doctorate), 26.9%. From one dataset, the answer is either 18% or 27% depending on the definition.

The measurement itself is also contested in the journals. Cibois (2008) argued that the odds ratio of 18 reported by Godechot and Louvet (2008) rests on a methodologically biased measure, held that the local hires worth worrying about are first posts taken immediately after the doctorate, and offered an alternative calculation (roughly 7.6). The estimation of prevalence does not yet have a settled procedure.

One case shows a norm moving the number. French mathematics explicitly adopted an “anti-localism” norm in the early 2000s, after which local hiring into junior posts all but disappeared (Menger & Marchika 2023). At the promotion-to-professor stage, however, the local share is 10% in mathematics against 48% across all fields. That figure is taken second-hand from a footnote in Godechot et al. (2025); the book chapter itself could not be reached.

Why It Happens

The literature does not converge on one theory. Seven mechanisms stand side by side.

Institutions require a formal search and then decouple it from the substance. Meyer and Rowan (1977) argued that formal organizational structures are adopted for institutional legitimacy and can be decoupled from actual activity. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) set out three isomorphic pressures under which organizations adopt similar formal procedures in pursuit of legitimacy rather than efficiency. That this is not merely abstract is shown by US law. The PERM special handling provision for college and university teachers (20 CFR § 656.18) makes advertisement in a national professional journal a legal requirement while allowing the application to be filed within eighteen months after the selection. Placing a formal advertisement after the winner is settled is something the regulation accommodates. In at least this corner of US practice, the predetermined search is not an illicit deviation but a procedure the state sanctions.

The narrowing is finished before the posting is written. From interviews with 23 people across four schools, White-Lewis (2021) documents how position definitions are drafted with a specific candidate already in mind, well before any advertisement appears.

Under uncertainty, the known candidate wins. O’Meara et al. (2023) followed five search committees and showed that, in weighing five kinds of risk (interest, expertise alignment, competence, collaborative fit, and control over timing), committees favor already-known internal or referred candidates as the safest bet.

“Fit” supplies the post-hoc justification. White-Lewis (2020) found across departments at US R1 universities that fit assessments track individual committee members’ preferences more than organizational requirements. Liera and Hernandez (2021) show that even at universities with racial equity policies, the final stage of a search diverges from the written policy, an empirical instance of the decoupling Meyer and Rowan described.

Non-search pathways exist as formal institutions. Dual hires (Schiebinger et al. 2008; Wolf-Wendel et al. 2003), cluster hires (McCambly et al. 2025), targeted recruitment (Lane 2024), and Japan’s internal promotions and named appointments (Kato 2023a). McCambly et al. (2025) analyze how, after the 2023 affirmative action ruling, cluster hiring came to function as a strategic side door around ordinary competitive searches.

Internal labor markets and succession. Doeringer and Piore (1971) supply the base theory for a structure in which the candidate has already been selected inside the organization and the external market serves as formal procedure. For Japan, Horta, Sato and Yonezawa (2011) explain qualitatively how two features, taking all degrees at a single institution and the concentration of doctoral supervision, persist after the spread of open recruitment because they secure organizational stability and institutional identity.

Prestige networks substitute for information. Clauset et al. (2015) showed from a hiring network of 18,924 faculty across three US fields that doctoral prestige predicts placement prestige more strongly than university rankings do. Wapman et al. (2022) report that the top 20.4% of institutions produce 80% of domestically trained faculty. Instead of assessing candidate quality directly, the prestige of the training institution does the work.

One Japanese primary source states the mechanism outright. Yamanoi (2000), in a study tracking 1,200 job postings from 1975 to 1992, writes:

There are those who point out that open recruitment itself, at doctoral-training universities and general universities alike, is abused as a cloak for democratic procedure. Where a department wishes to hire a particular person it has in mind, one cannot dismiss the concern that the posting’s wording is tailored to that person in advance, that the conditions are manipulated, or that the selection committee is squared beforehand. In such cases there is a danger that open recruitment is adopted as nothing more than a formal procedure. (Yamanoi 2000, pp.62–63)

The same study reports that education faculties at doctoral-training universities ran almost no open searches at all. Before one could suspect a search of being hollow, there was no search.

What Differs Between Japan and the Anglophone World

The difference in self-hire levels is absorbed by definitional differences and is of little comparative use. Where a comparable difference does appear is in whether the non-search pathway has a name.

The United States routes around the open search through named, proceduralized exceptions: dual hires, cluster hires, target-of-opportunity appointments, and search waivers (Schiebinger et al. 2008; McCambly et al. 2025; Lane 2024). Japan avoids generating a search in the first place, through internal promotion and named appointment within the rank structure (Kato 2023a).

One hypothesis follows. Where the institution holds an official pathway around the open search, the hollow search may be less likely to occur. Kato (2023a), noting that named appointments at Tokyo Metropolitan University carry no JREC-IN posting period, writes that “it may be inferred that the sham searches known as dekirēsu, in which the appointee is already decided, are not being conducted.” Where the bypass is sanctioned, there is no need to fake the search.

This is an inference from a single institution and has not been tested. The reverse inference stands about as well. The more the bypass is institutionalized, the thinner the meaning of the open search may become, and the substance of the searches that remain may fall with it. No data in this collection settles which is right.

The Anatomy of What Cannot Be Measured

• No survey in Japan or the Anglophone world measures applicant perception, that is, whether candidates felt a search was predetermined.
• Fernandes et al. (2020), surveying 317 early-career researchers, found no single predictor of hiring outcomes. This is neither evidence for nor evidence against predetermination.
• The rate of search waiver use in the United States does not appear even in the University of California Academic Senate’s own report (UCPB 2022). Waiver policy documents exist; usage statistics are not published.
• The closest Japanese primary statistic is NISTEP Research Material 133, The Current State of Researcher Recruitment at Universities and Public Research Institutions (Miura & Sato 2007), whose text could not be extracted in any of four attempts because of the repository’s PDF delivery format. The bibliographic record is confirmed.

Gaps

1. Direct measurement of the predetermination rate is absent in both Japan and the Anglophone world. This is the central gap of the topic.
2. Applicant-perception surveys are absent. No study asks people who have applied whether they judged the outcome to have been settled in advance.
3. UK empirical work is thin. Macfarlane and Jefferson (2022) liken British academic hiring to a medieval guild and argue that internal candidates and old boy networks are structurally favored, but the piece is conceptual and carries no original data. Bhopal (2022) interviews 34 academics of color in the UK and USA, but on racialized exclusion rather than the frequency of predetermination.
4. Usage statistics for search waivers and target-of-opportunity appointments in the United States are absent.
5. Japan has no nationally representative statistic on search rates or non-search hire rates in a form that can be reached.
6. The only case showing that an explicit norm can move the rate is French mathematics (Menger & Marchika 2023), and that one is second-hand.

Gaps 1 and 2 can be closed if the method is designed for them. An applicant survey with guaranteed anonymity can measure the perception of predetermination. Matching JREC-IN postings against hiring outcomes to compute the share of appointees whose prior post was at the same institution is possible in principle. The measurement is genuinely hard, but nobody having tried is not the same thing as having tried and failed.

References

Japanese-language sources.

1. Kato, Maki (加藤真紀). 2022. “Employment of Doctoral Graduates as University Faculty: Focusing on Inbreeding and Concurrent Appointments.” Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 22, 115-137. https://web.cshe.nagoya-u.ac.jp/publication/journal/img/no22/06.pdf
2. Kato, Maki (加藤真紀). 2023a. “Competition in University Faculty Searches: The Case of Faculty Selection at Tokyo Metropolitan Public Universities.” Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 24. https://web.cshe.nagoya-u.ac.jp/publication/journal/img/no24/11.pdf
3. Kato, Maki (加藤真紀). 2023b. “Teaching Competence Required of University Faculty: An Attempt Using JREC-IN Job Posting Data.” Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 23, 207-226. https://web.cshe.nagoya-u.ac.jp/publication/journal/img/no23/11.pdf
4. Katsuragi, Koichi (葛城浩一). 2018. “The Process of Obtaining a Faculty Position and Its Relation to Subsequent Teaching and Research: Focusing on Border-Free Universities.” Daigaku Ronshu, 50, 161-176, RIHE, Hiroshima University. (Full text unreachable after the April 2025 repository migration; bibliographic record confirmed via CiNii Research and researchmap. [primary verification pending])
5. Katsuragi, Koichi (葛城浩一). 2022. “Barriers on the Career Path to Becoming University Faculty: A Basic Analysis Using JREC-IN Portal Job Postings.” Journal of Higher Education and Lifelong Learning (Kobe University), 30, 49-64. https://doi.org/10.24546/81013317
6. Kobayashi, Yoshie (小林淑恵). 2015. “The Current State of Fixed-Term Employment among Early-Career Researchers.” Japanese Journal of Labour Studies, 660, 27-40. https://www.jil.go.jp/institute/zassi/backnumber/2015/07/pdf/027-040.pdf
7. Miura, Yukiko, & Sato, Shinsuke (三浦有紀子・佐藤真輔). 2007. The Current State of Researcher Recruitment at Universities and Public Research Institutions. NISTEP Research Material 133. https://nistep.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/4648 (Text not reached. [primary verification pending])
8. National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. 2009. Survey on Science and Technology Human Resources. NISTEP REPORT No.123. https://nistep.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/4444 (Text not reached. [primary verification pending])
9. Sugimoto, Kenji (杉本憲司). 2024. “The Implementation and Characteristics of Women-Only Faculty Searches.” Jxiv (JST preprint server). https://jxiv.jst.go.jp/index.php/jxiv/preprint/view/841 (not peer reviewed)
10. Yano, Tomoko (矢野智子). 2019. “French Language Education at Japanese Universities as Seen from Faculty Job Postings.” Revue japonaise de didactique du français, 14(1-2), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.24495/rjdf.14.1-2_41
11. Yamanoi, Atsunori (山野井敦徳). 2000. A Study of Open Recruitment of University Faculty in Japan: How Do Japanese Universities Recruit? RIHE Monograph 61, Hiroshima University. https://rihe-publications.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/so61.pdf
12. Yamanoi, Atsunori (山野井敦徳, ed.). 2007. The Japanese Academic Labor Market. Tamagawa University Press. https://www.tamagawa-up.jp/book/b27889.html

English- and French-language sources.

13. Abbott, A. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. University of Chicago Press. https://www.bibliovault.org/BV.landing.epl?ISBN=9780226189666
14. al Shaibah, A. 2025. Diversifying the Professoriate in Canadian Academe: A Case Study of Search Processes and Outcomes in a Faculty of Science. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 206, 151-168. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/article/view/77846
15. Altbach, P. G., Yudkevich, M., & Rumbley, L. E. (eds.). 2015. Academic Inbreeding and Mobility in Higher Education: Global Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan. (Japan chapter: Yonezawa, A., “Inbreeding in Japanese Higher Education,” pp.99-129) https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137461254
16. Balyer, A., & Bakay, M. E. 2022. Academic Inbreeding: A Risk or Benefit for Universities? Journal of Education and Learning, 11(1), 147-. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v11n1p147 (publisher listed on Beall’s List; reliability held in reserve)
17. Bhopal, K. 2022. Academics of colour in elite universities in the UK and the USA: the “unspoken system of exclusion”. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.2020746
18. Bourdieu, P. 1988. Homo Academicus (trans. P. Collier; original 1984). Stanford University Press. https://www.sup.org/books/sociology/homo-academicus
19. Cahn, P. S., Gona, C. M., Naidoo, K., & Truong, K. A. 2022. Disrupting Bias Without Trainings: The Effect of Equity Advocates on Faculty Search Committees. Innovative Higher Education, 47(2), 253-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-021-09575-5
20. Chaney, K. E., & Garr-Schultz, A. 2025. Cluster hires without retention efforts will not diversify the academy. Nature Reviews Psychology, 4, 241-243. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00423-3
21. Cibois, P. 2008. Pour une mesure sans biais du localisme. À propos de l’article de Olivier Godechot et Alexandra Louvet. Socio-logos, 3. https://doi.org/10.4000/socio-logos.1753
22. Clauset, A., Arbesman, S., & Larremore, D. B. 2015. Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Science Advances, 1(1), e1400005. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400005
23. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
24. Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. 1971. Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. D.C. Heath. (reissued by M.E. Sharpe 1985, ISBN 0765632128; URL not verified)
25. Fernandes, J. D., et al. 2020. Research Culture: A survey-based analysis of the academic job market. eLife, 9, e54097. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54097
26. Godechot, O., & Louvet, A. 2008. Le localisme universitaire: un essai d’évaluation. La Vie des idées. https://booksandideas.net/Academic-Inbreeding-An-Evaluation.html
27. Godechot, O., Issiakou, R., Renisio, Y., & Rougier, A. 2025. Le localisme universitaire: nouvelles estimations. La Vie des Idées, 18 November 2025. https://laviedesidees.fr/IMG/pdf/20251118_godechot-2.pdf / English translation: https://booksandideas.net/Academic-inbreeding-new-estimates
28. Horta, H. 2012. Deepening our understanding of academic inbreeding effects on research information exchange and scientific output. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9559-7
29. Horta, H., Sato, M., & Yonezawa, A. 2011. Academic Inbreeding: Exploring Its Characteristics and Rationale in Japanese Universities Using a Qualitative Perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9126-9
30. Houk, K., & Nielsen, J. 2023. Inclusive Hiring in Academic Libraries: A Qualitative Analysis of Attitudes and Reflections of Search Committee Members. College & Research Libraries, 84(4), 568-588. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.84.4.568
31. Hrynaszkiewicz, I., Novich, B., Harney, J., Gray, R., & Kiermer, V. 2026. A survey of how biology researchers assess credibility when serving on grant and hiring committees. PeerJ. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.20502
32. Kang, Y. 2025. Where are GIScience Faculty Hired from? Analyzing Faculty Mobility and Research Themes Through Hiring Networks. arXiv:2508.09043 (not peer reviewed). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.09043
33. Karadağ, E., & Çiftçi, S. K. 2022. Deepening the Effects of the Academic Inbreeding: Its Impact on Individual and Institutional Research Productivity. Research in Higher Education, 63(6), 1015-1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-021-09670-8
34. Kim, J., & Celis, S. 2026. Inbreeding vs. Mobility as Faculty Hiring Strategies? A 10-year Comparative Study on Chile and Korea. SSRN Working Paper (not peer reviewed). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5745987
35. Lane, C. 2024. Does targeted recruitment turn the dial for gender equity? A qualitative study at an Australian University. Higher Education Quarterly, 78, 934-956. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12499
36. Lee, E., Clauset, A., & Larremore, D. B. 2021. The Dynamics of Faculty Hiring Networks. EPJ Data Science, 10, 48. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.02949
37. Liera, R., & Hernandez, T. E. 2021. Color-evasive Racism in the Final Stage of Faculty Searches. Review of Higher Education, 45(2), 181-209. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2021.0020
38. Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. 1995. Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45-71. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000401
39. Macfarlane, B., & Jefferson, A. E. 2022. The Closed Academy? Guild Power and Academic Social Class. Higher Education Quarterly, 76(1), 36-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12305
40. Martinková, P., Goldhaber, D., & Erosheva, E. 2018. Disparities in ratings of internal and external applicants: A case for model-based inter-rater reliability. PLOS ONE, 13(10), e0203002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203002
41. Menger, P.-M., & Marchika, C. 2023. L’antilocalisme mathématique. In Menger, P.-M. & Verschueren, P. (eds.), Le monde des mathématiques, Éditions du Seuil, pp.69-182. (text not reached; [primary verification pending])
42. Menger, P.-M., Marchika, C., Renisio, Y., & Verschueren, P. 2020. Formations et carrières mathématiques en France: un modèle typique d’excellence? Revue française d’économie, 35(2), 155-217. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-francaise-d-economie-2020-2-page-155
43. Merton, R. K. 1942/1973. Science and Technology in a Democratic Order (later reprinted as “The Normative Structure of Science”). Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115-126 / The Sociology of Science, University of Chicago Press. https://www.panarchy.org/merton/science.html
44. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
45. Musselin, C. 2010. The Market for Academics. Routledge. (URL not verified)
46. Navarro, A., & Rivero, A. 2001. High rate of inbreeding in Spanish universities. Nature, 410(6824), 14. https://doi.org/10.1038/35065259
47. O’Meara, K., Templeton, L. L., White-Lewis, D. K., Culpepper, D., & Anderson, J. 2023. The Safest Bet: Identifying and Assessing Risk in Faculty Selection. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221150438
48. McCambly, H., Liera, R., Rodgers, A. J., & Park, B. 2025. Analyzing the Purposes and Mechanisms of Faculty Cluster Hiring Initiatives to Promote Racial Equity. The Journal of Higher Education (online first). https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2025.2546765
49. Rivera, L. A. 2017. When Two Bodies Are (Not) a Problem: Gender and Relationship Status Discrimination in Academic Hiring. American Sociological Review, 82(6), 1111-1138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417739294
50. Rodgers, A. J., & Liera, R. 2023. When Race Becomes Capital: Diversity, Faculty Hiring, and the Entrenchment of Racial Capitalism in Higher Education. Educational Researcher, 52(7), 444-449. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231175359
51. Schiebinger, L., Henderson, A. D., & Gilmartin, S. K. 2008. Dual-Career Academic Couples: What Universities Need to Know. Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Stanford University. https://crlt.umich.edu/sites/default/files/resource_files/Handout_5_DualCareerFinal.pdf
52. Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. 2017. “We Are All for Diversity, but …”: How Faculty Hiring Committees Reproduce Whiteness. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 557-580. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.557
53. Shibayama, S. 2022. Development of originality under inbreeding: A case of life science labs in Japan. Higher Education Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12315
54. Soler, M. 2001. How inbreeding affects productivity in Europe. Nature, 411, 132. https://doi.org/10.1038/35075637
55. University of California, Academic Senate (UCPB). 2022. UCPB Report on Faculty Hiring. https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/sc-md-report-on-faculty-hiring.pdf
56. U.S. Department of Labor. 20 CFR § 656.18 — Optional special recruitment and documentation procedures for college and university teachers. Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/656.18
57. Wang, L. 2026. Unpacking Merit, Fit, and Diversity: A Multifaceted Framework to Academic Gatekeeping in Social Sciences at U.S. R1 Research Universities. Sociological Inquiry, 96(2), 417-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.70026
58. Wapman, K. H., Zhang, S., Clauset, A., & Larremore, D. B. 2022. Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention. Nature, 610, 120-127. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05222-x / full text https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9534765/ / correction https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06379-9
59. White-Lewis, D. K. 2020. The Facade of Fit in Faculty Search Processes. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(6), 833-857. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2020.1775058
60. White-Lewis, D. K. 2021. Before the AD: How Departments Generate Hiring Priorities that Support or Avert Faculty Diversity. Teachers College Record, 123(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812112300109
61. Wolf-Wendel, L. B., Twombly, S., & Rice, S. 2003. The Two-Body Problem: Dual-Career-Couple Hiring Practices in Higher Education. Johns Hopkins University Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/20650
62. Yudkevich, M., & Sivak, E. University Inbreeding: An Impact on Values, Strategies and Individual Productivity of Faculty Members. SSRN Working Paper (year unconfirmed, not peer reviewed). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1996417
63. A Social Network Analysis of the Operations Research/Industrial Engineering Faculty Hiring Network. 2018. arXiv:1803.00125 (author names not extractable from the PDF, not peer reviewed). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.00125

Unverified Items

All items marked [primary verification pending] in the text and references, plus figures that could not be confirmed against a primary source (24 in total; details in the “未検証事項” section of source/review/predetermined-faculty-hiring/papers.md).

• Katsuragi (2018), 48.4%: definition, denominator, survey year, and sample size all unconfirmed. The Hiroshima University repository migration of April 2025 removed the URL, and five routes failed to reach the text. The most important unverified item on the Japanese side.
• NISTEP Research Material 133 (Miura & Sato 2007), search rates and non-search hire rates: text extraction failed in all four attempts because of the repository’s PDF delivery format.
• NISTEP REPORT No.123 (2009), competition ratios: known only through Kato’s (2023a) citation.
• Soler (2001), country-level inbreeding rates (Spain 91% and others): Nature requires login; secondary citation only. The row was removed from the table in the main text.
• Navarro & Rivero (2001), specific figures: no primary re-verification attempted.
• Menger & Marchika (2023), “48% across all fields at the promotion stage”: taken second-hand from a footnote in Godechot et al. (2025); the book chapter itself was not read.
• ORIE self-hire rate of 14% (arXiv:1803.00125) and its author names: PDF text corruption prevented direct confirmation.
• GIScience self-hire rate (Kang 2025): not extractable from the text.
• US search waiver usage rate: waiver policy documents were confirmed to exist, but no usage statistic was reached.
• South Korean inbreeding rate of 95.6%: nearby figures appear in press reporting (95.24% among 270 medical school professors, 75.6–77.7% university-wide), but no academic primary source was reached, so nothing was entered into the corpus.
• Perlmutter’s verbatim definition of “fake search”: the source of the Anglophone term for this topic, but the original article returned 403, the author’s mirrors were blank, and the archive was unreachable under tool constraints, so it was not included.
• Text not reached (paywall or unknown URL): the chapters of Yamanoi (ed., 2007), Shibayama (2022), Yonezawa’s Japan chapter (2015), Yudkevich & Sivak, Kim & Celis (2026), Menger et al. (2020), Bhopal (2022), the sample size in Horta (2012), the original volume and pages of Merton (1942), URLs for Doeringer & Piore (1971) and Musselin (2010), the fake-search reference in Wang (2026), any predetermination reference in al Shaibah (2025), and Lane’s (2024) first name.