29
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents?

      discussion

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Much of the work done by faculty at both public and private universities has significant public dimensions: it is often paid for by public funds; it is often aimed at serving the public good; and it is often subject to public evaluation. To understand how the public dimensions of faculty work are valued, we analyzed review, promotion, and tenure documents from a representative sample of 129 universities in the US and Canada. Terms and concepts related to public and community are mentioned in a large portion of documents, but mostly in ways that relate to service, which is an undervalued aspect of academic careers. Moreover, the documents make significant mention of traditional research outputs and citation-based metrics: however, such outputs and metrics reward faculty work targeted to academics, and often disregard the public dimensions. Institutions that seek to embody their public mission could therefore work towards changing how faculty work is assessed and incentivized.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family?

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure

            Assessment of researchers is necessary for decisions of hiring, promotion, and tenure. A burgeoning number of scientific leaders believe the current system of faculty incentives and rewards is misaligned with the needs of society and disconnected from the evidence about the causes of the reproducibility crisis and suboptimal quality of the scientific publication record. To address this issue, particularly for the clinical and life sciences, we convened a 22-member expert panel workshop in Washington, DC, in January 2017. Twenty-two academic leaders, funders, and scientists participated in the meeting. As background for the meeting, we completed a selective literature review of 22 key documents critiquing the current incentive system. From each document, we extracted how the authors perceived the problems of assessing science and scientists, the unintended consequences of maintaining the status quo for assessing scientists, and details of their proposed solutions. The resulting table was used as a seed for participant discussion. This resulted in six principles for assessing scientists and associated research and policy implications. We hope the content of this paper will serve as a basis for establishing best practices and redesigning the current approaches to assessing scientists by the many players involved in that process.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Reviewing Editor
                Role: Senior Editor
                Journal
                eLife
                Elife
                eLife
                eLife
                eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
                2050-084X
                12 February 2019
                2019
                : 8
                : e42254
                Affiliations
                [1 ]deptSchool of Publishing Simon Fraser University VancouverCanada
                [2 ]deptScholarly Communications Lab Simon Fraser University VancouverCanada
                [3 ]deptMary Lou Fulton Teachers College Arizona State University TempeUnited States
                [4 ]deptDepartment of Nutrition and Food Sciences & Food Systems Program University of Vermont BurlingtonUnited States
                [5 ]deptDepartamento de Física Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mexico CityMexico
                eLife United Kingdom
                eLife United Kingdom
                eLife United Kingdom
                UNC Greensboro
                Indiana University
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9344-7439
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8857-3000
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4664-179X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3853-9856
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8323-1351
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9430-5221
                Article
                42254
                10.7554/eLife.42254
                6391063
                30747708
                a202dd1f-7366-4c16-90d6-0e04b1b053f4
                © 2019, Alperin et al

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 24 September 2018
                : 11 February 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000919, Open Society Foundations;
                Award ID: OR2016-29841
                Award Recipient :
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
                Categories
                Feature Article
                Meta-Research
                Custom metadata
                An analysis of review, promotion and tenure documents from 129 US and Canadian universities suggests institutions could better fulfill their public missions by changing how they incentivize the public dimensions of faculty work.

                Life sciences
                scholarly communications,academic careers,metrics,open access,higher education,institutional policy,none

                Comments

                Comment on this article