scholarly journals Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences: a cross-sectional analysis of 146 universities

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle B Rice ◽  
Hana Raffoul ◽  
John PA Ioannidis ◽  
David Moher
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Open Science ◽  
List Type ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
International Reputation ◽  
Journal Impact

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo determine the presence of a set of pre-specified traditional and progressive criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences among universities worldwide.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingNot applicable.Participants170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden Ranking of world universities list were considered.Main outcome measuresTwo independent reviewers searched for all guidelines applied when assessing scientists for promotion and tenure for institutions with biomedical faculties. Where faculty-level guidelines were not available, institution-level guidelines were sought. Available documents were reviewed and the presence of 5 traditional (e.g., number of publications) and 7 progressive (e.g., data sharing) criteria was noted in guidelines for assessing assistant professors, associate professors, professors, and the granting of tenure.ResultsA total of 146 institutions had faculties of biomedical sciences with 92 having eligible guidelines available to review. Traditional criteria were more commonly reported than progressive criteria (t(82)= 15.1, p= .001). Traditional criteria mentioned peer-reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact, grant funding, and national or international reputation in 95%, 37%, 28%, 67%, and 48% of the guidelines, respectively. Conversely, among progressive criteria only citations (any mention in 26%) and accommodations for extenuating circumstances (37%) were relatively commonly mentioned; while there was rare mention of alternative metrics for sharing research (2%) and data sharing (1%), and 3 criteria (publishing in open access mediums, registering research, and adhering to reporting guidelines) were not found in any institution reviewed. We observed notable differences across continents on whether guidelines are accessible or not (Australia 100%, North America 97%, Europe 50%, Asia 58%, South America 17%), and more subtle differences on the use of specific criteria.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that the current evaluation of scientists emphasizes traditional criteria as opposed to progressive criteria. This may reinforce research practices that are known to be problematic while insufficiently supporting the conduct of better-quality research and open science. Institutions should consider incentivizing progressive criteria.RegistrationOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/26ucp/)What is already known on this topicAcademics tailor their research practices based on the evaluation criteria applied within their academic institution.Ensuring that biomedical researchers are incentivized by adhering to best practice guidelines for research is essential given the clinical implications of this work.While changes to the criteria used to assess professors and confer tenure have been recommended, a systematic assessment of promotion and tenure criteria being applied worldwide has not been conducted.What this study addsAcross countries, university guidelines focus on rewarding traditional research criteria (peer-reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact, grant funding, and national or international reputation).The minimum requirements for promotion and tenure criteria are predominantly objective in nature, although several of them are inadequate measures to assess the impact of researchers.Developing and evaluating more appropriate, progressive indicators of research may facilitate changes in the evaluation practices for rewarding researchers.

scholarly journals Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m2081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle B Rice ◽  
Hana Raffoul ◽  
John P A Ioannidis ◽  
David Moher
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Full Professor ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Sectional Analysis

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the presence of a set of pre-specified traditional and non-traditional criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences among universities worldwide.DesignCross sectional study.SettingInternational sample of universities.Participants170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden ranking of world universities list.Main outcome measurePresence of five traditional (for example, number of publications) and seven non-traditional (for example, data sharing) criteria in guidelines for assessing assistant professors, associate professors, and professors and the granting of tenure in institutions with biomedical faculties.ResultsA total of 146 institutions had faculties of biomedical sciences, and 92 had eligible guidelines available for review. Traditional criteria of peer reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact factor, grant funding, and national or international reputation were mentioned in 95% (n=87), 37% (34), 28% (26), 67% (62), and 48% (44) of the guidelines, respectively. Conversely, among non-traditional criteria, only citations (any mention in 26%; n=24) and accommodations for employment leave (37%; 34) were relatively commonly mentioned. Mention of alternative metrics for sharing research (3%; n=3) and data sharing (1%; 1) was rare, and three criteria (publishing in open access mediums, registering research, and adhering to reporting guidelines) were not found in any guidelines reviewed. Among guidelines for assessing promotion to full professor, traditional criteria were more commonly reported than non-traditional criteria (traditional criteria 54.2%, non-traditional items 9.5%; mean difference 44.8%, 95% confidence interval 39.6% to 50.0%; P=0.001). Notable differences were observed across continents in whether guidelines were accessible (Australia 100% (6/6), North America 97% (28/29), Europe 50% (27/54), Asia 58% (29/50), South America 17% (1/6)), with more subtle differences in the use of specific criteria.ConclusionsThis study shows that the evaluation of scientists emphasises traditional criteria as opposed to non-traditional criteria. This may reinforce research practices that are known to be problematic while insufficiently supporting the conduct of better quality research and open science. Institutions should consider incentivising non-traditional criteria.Study registrationOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/26ucp/?view_only=b80d2bc7416543639f577c1b8f756e44).

scholarly journals Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of medicine: a cross-sectional study of the Canadian U15 universities

FACETS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-70
Author(s):  
Danielle B. Rice ◽  
Hana Raffoul ◽  
John P.A. Ioannidis ◽  
David Moher
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Research Universities ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
International Reputation ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Canadian Research

Background: The objective of this study was to determine the presence of a set of prespecified criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure within faculties of medicine among the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities. Methods: Each faculty guideline for assessing promotion and tenure was reviewed and the presence of five traditional (peer-reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact factor, grant funding, and national/international reputation) and seven nontraditional (citations, data sharing, publishing in open access mediums, accommodating leaves, alternative ways for sharing research, registering research, using reporting guidelines) criteria were collected by two reviewers. Results: Among the U15 institutions, four of five traditional criteria (80.0%) were present in at least one promotion guideline, whereas only three of seven nontraditional incentives (42.9%) were present in any promotion guidelines. When assessing full professors, there were a median of three traditional criteria listed, versus one nontraditional criterion. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that faculties of medicine among the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities base assessments for promotion and tenure on traditional criteria. Some of these metrics may reinforce problematic practices in medical research. These faculties should consider incentivizing criteria that can enhance the quality of medical research.

scholarly journals Limited engagement with transparent and open science standards in the policies of pain journals: a cross-sectional evaluation

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2019-111296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aidan G Cashin ◽  
Matthew K Bagg ◽  
Georgia C Richards ◽  
Elaine Toomey ◽  
James H McAuley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Open Science ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Journal Policies

Scientific progress requires transparency and openness. The ability to critique, replicate and implement scientific findings depends on the transparency of the study design and methods, and the open availability of study materials, data and code. Journals are key stakeholders in supporting transparency and openness. This study aimed to evaluate 10 highest ranked pain journals’ authorship policies with respect to their support for transparent and open research practices. Two independent authors evaluated the journal policies (as at 27 May 2019) using three tools: the self-developed Transparency and Openness Evaluation Tool, the Centre for Open Science (COS) Transparency Factor and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest. We found that the journal policies had an overall low level of engagement with research transparency and openness standards. The median COS Transparency Factor score was 3.5 (IQR 2.8) of 29 possible points, and only 7 of 10 journals’ stated requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest aligned fully with the ICMJE recommendations. Improved transparency and openness of pain research has the potential to benefit all that are involved in generating and using research findings. Journal policies that endorse and facilitate transparent and open research practices will ultimately improve the evidence base that informs the care provided for people with pain.

Introduction to the special section on Increasing Replicability, Transparency, and Openness in Clinical Psychology

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L Tackett ◽  
Josh Miller
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Clinical Psychology ◽  
Special Section ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Clinical Psychologists ◽  
Existing Problems

As psychological research comes under increasing fire for the crisis of replicability, attention has turned to methods and practices that facilitate (or hinder) a more replicable and veridical body of empirical evidence. These trends have focused on “open science” initiatives, including an emphasis on replication, transparency, and data sharing. Despite this broader movement in psychology, clinical psychologists and psychiatrists have been largely absent from the broader conversation on documenting the extent of existing problems as well as generating solutions to problematic methods and practices in our area (Tackett et al., 2017). The goal of the current special section was to bring together psychopathology researchers to explore these and related areas as they pertain to the types of research conducted in clinical psychology and allied disciplines.

Correlation of Altmetric Attention Scores with Citations in Major Pharmacy Journals (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dave L Dixon ◽  
William L Baker
Keyword(s):  
Citation Count ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Article Type ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND The impact and quality of a faculty members publications is a key factor in promotion and tenure decisions and career advancement. Traditional measures, including citation counts and journal impact factor, have notable limitations. Since 2010, alternative metrics have been proposed as another means of assessing the impact and quality of scholarly work. The Altmetric Attention Score is an objective score frequently used to determine the immediate reach of a published work across the web, including news outlets, blogs, social media, and more. Several studies evaluating the correlation between the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations have found mixed results and may be discipline-specific. OBJECTIVE To determine the correlation between higher Altmetric Attention Scores and citation count for journal articles published in major pharmacy journals. METHODS This cross-sectional study evaluated articles from major pharmacy journals ranked in the top 10% according to the Altmetric Attention Score. Sources of attention that determined the Altmetric Attention Score were obtained, as well each articles open access status, article type, study design, and topic. Correlation between journal characteristics, including the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations, was assessed using the Spearman’s correlation test. A Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the Altmetric Attention Scores between journals. RESULTS Six major pharmacy journals were identified. A total of 1,376 articles were published in 2017 and 137 of these represented the top 10% with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores. The median Altmetric Attention Score was 19 (IQR 15-28). Twitter and Mendeley were the most common sources of attention. Over half (56.2%) of the articles were original investigations and 49.8% were either cross-sectional, qualitative, or cohort studies. No significant correlation was found between the Altmetric Attention Score and citation count (rs=0.07, P = 0.485). Mendeley was the only attention source that correlated with the number of citations (rs=0.486, P<0.001). The median Altmetric Attention Score varied widely between each journal (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The overall median Altmetric Attention score of 19 suggests articles published in major pharmacy journals are near the top 5% of all scientific output. However, we found no correlation between the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations for articles published in major pharmacy journals in the year 2017.

scholarly journals Environmentally Friendly and Multifunctional Shaddock Peel-Based Carbon Aerogel for Thermal-Insulation and Microwave Absorption

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Weihua Gu ◽  
Jiaqi Sheng ◽  
Qianqian Huang ◽  
Gehuan Wang ◽  
Jiabin Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Microwave Absorption ◽  
Thermal Insulation ◽  
Freeze Drying ◽  
Thermal Infrared ◽  
Carbon Aerogel ◽  
Carbon Aerogels ◽  
List Type ◽  
Drying Method ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Compression Resistance

Highlights The eco-friendly shaddock peel-derived carbon aerogels were prepared by a freeze-drying method. Multiple functions such as thermal insulation, compression resistance and microwave absorption can be integrated into one material-carbon aerogel. Novel computer simulation technology strategy was selected to simulate significant radar cross-sectional reduction values under real far field condition. . Abstract Eco-friendly electromagnetic wave absorbing materials with excellent thermal infrared stealth property, heat-insulating ability and compression resistance are highly attractive in practical applications. Meeting the aforesaid requirements simultaneously is a formidable challenge. Herein, ultra-light carbon aerogels were fabricated via fresh shaddock peel by facile freeze-drying method and calcination process, forming porous network architecture. With the heating platform temperature of 70 °C, the upper surface temperatures of the as-prepared carbon aerogel present a slow upward trend. The color of the sample surface in thermal infrared images is similar to that of the surroundings. With the maximum compressive stress of 2.435 kPa, the carbon aerogels can provide favorable endurance. The shaddock peel-based carbon aerogels possess the minimum reflection loss value (RLmin) of − 29.50 dB in X band. Meanwhile, the effective absorption bandwidth covers 5.80 GHz at a relatively thin thickness of only 1.7 mm. With the detection theta of 0°, the maximum radar cross-sectional (RCS) reduction values of 16.28 dB m2 can be achieved. Theoretical simulations of RCS have aroused extensive interest owing to their ingenious design and time-saving feature. This work paves the way for preparing multi-functional microwave absorbers derived from biomass raw materials under the guidance of RCS simulations.

scholarly journals Acceptance of smoking cessation support and quitting behaviours of women attending Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Services for antenatal care

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine B. Daly ◽  
Sarah Dowe ◽  
Belinda Tully ◽  
Flora Tzelepis ◽  
Christophe Lecathelinais ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Antenatal Care ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Local Health ◽  
List Type ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Aboriginal Women ◽  
Quitting Smoking

Abstract Background Acceptance of smoking cessation support during antenatal care and associated quitting behaviours of pregnant Aboriginal women or women having an Aboriginal baby has not been investigated. This study aimed to determine, among pregnant women who smoke and attended AMIHS for their antenatal care: The acceptance of smoking cessation support, factors associated with acceptance and barriers to acceptance; The prevalence of quitting behaviours and factors associated with quitting behaviours. Methods A cross-sectional telephone survey of women who attended 11 AMIHSs for their antenatal care during a 12 month period in the Hunter New England Local Health District of New South Wales. Results One hundred women contacted consented to complete the survey (76%). Of those offered cessation support, 68% accepted NRT, 56% accepted follow-up support and 35% accepted a Quitline referral. Participants accepting NRT had greater odds of quitting smoking at least twice during the antenatal period [OR = 6.90 (CI: 1.59–29.7)] and those reporting using NRT for greater than eight weeks had six times the odds of quitting smoking for one day or more [OR = 6.07 (CI: 1.14–32.4)]. Conclusions Aboriginal women or women having an Aboriginal baby who smoke make multiple attempts to quit during pregnancy and most women accept smoking cessation support when offered by their antenatal care providers. Acceptance of care and quitting success may be improved with increased focus on culturally appropriate care and enhanced training of antenatal care providers to increase skills in treating nicotine addiction and supporting women to use NRT as recommended by treatment guidelines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document