scholarly journals The Value of Data and Other Non-traditional Scholarly Outputs in Academic Review, Promotion, and Tenure in Canada and the United States

2022 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Academic Review

scholarly journals Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations

eLife ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin C McKiernan ◽  
Lesley A Schimanski ◽  
Carol Muñoz Nieves ◽  
Lisa Matthias ◽  
Meredith T Niles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
The United States ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Master's Institutions ◽  
Academic Review ◽  
Journal Impact

We analyzed how often and in what ways the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is currently used in review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents of a representative sample of universities from the United States and Canada. 40% of research-intensive institutions and 18% of master’s institutions mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 87% supported its use in at least one of their RPT documents, 13% expressed caution about its use, and none heavily criticized it or prohibited its use. Furthermore, 63% of institutions that mentioned the JIF associated the metric with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. We conclude that use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and that there is work to be done to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.

scholarly journals Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin C. McKiernan ◽  
Lesley A. Schimanski ◽  
Carol Muñoz Nieves ◽  
Lisa Matthias ◽  
Meredith T. Niles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Academic Evaluation ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Doctoral Research ◽  
Academic Units ◽  
Academic Review ◽  
Journal Impact

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) was originally designed to aid libraries in deciding which journals to index and purchase for their collections. Over the past few decades, however, it has become a relied upon metric used to evaluate research articles based on journal rank. Surveyed faculty often report feeling pressure to publish in journals with high JIFs and mention reliance on the JIF as one problem with current academic evaluation systems. While faculty reports are useful, information is lacking on how often and in what ways the JIF is currently used for review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We therefore collected and analyzed RPT documents from a representative sample of 129 universities from the United States and Canada and 381 of their academic units. We found that 40% of doctoral, research-intensive (R-type) institutions and 18% of master’s, or comprehensive (M-type) institutions explicitly mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms, in their RPT documents. Undergraduate, or baccalaureate (B-type) institutions did not mention it at all. A detailed reading of these documents suggests that institutions may also be using a variety of terms to indirectly refer to the JIF. Our qualitative analysis shows that 87% of the institutions that mentioned the JIF supported the metric’s use in at least one of their RPT documents, while 13% of institutions expressed caution about the JIF’s use in evaluations. None of the RPT documents we analyzed heavily criticized the JIF or prohibited its use in evaluations. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 63% associated it with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. In sum, our results show that the use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and indicates there is work to be done to improve evaluation processes to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.

scholarly journals How faculty define quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0257340
Author(s):  
Esteban Morales ◽  
Erin C. McKiernan ◽  
Meredith T. Niles ◽  
Lesley Schimanski ◽  
Juan Pablo Alperin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Demographic Characteristics ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Context Specific ◽  
The U.S

Despite the calls for change, there is significant consensus that when it comes to evaluating publications, review, promotion, and tenure processes should aim to reward research that is of high "quality," is published in "prestigious" journals, and has an "impact." Nevertheless, such terms are highly subjective and present challenges to ascertain precisely what such research looks like. Accordingly, this article responds to the question: how do faculty from universities in the United States and Canada define the terms quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals? We address this question by surveying 338 faculty members from 55 different institutions in the U.S. and Canada. While relying on self-reported definitions that are not linked to their behavior, this study’s findings highlight that faculty often describe these distinct terms in overlapping ways. Additionally, results show that marked variance in definitions across faculty does not correspond to demographic characteristics. This study’s results highlight the subjectivity of common research terms and the importance of implementing evaluation regimes that do not rely on ill-defined concepts and may be context specific.

scholarly journals The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Dawson ◽  
Esteban Morales ◽  
Erin C. McKiernan ◽  
Lesley A. Schimanski ◽  
Meredith T. Niles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Academic Departments ◽  
Additional Element ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Doctoral Research ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Data Survey ◽  
Academic Review

Review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes at universities typically assess candidates along three dimensions: research, teaching, and service. In recent years, some have argued for the inclusion of a controversial fourth criterion: collegiality. While collegiality plays a role in the morale and effectiveness of academic departments, it is amorphic and difficult to assess, and could be misused to stifle dissent or enforce homogeneity. Despite this, some institutions have opted to include this additional element in their RPT documents and processes, but it is unknown the extent of this practice and how it varies across institution type and disciplinary units. This study is based on two sets of data: survey data collected as part of a project that explored the publishing decisions of faculty and how these related to perceived importance in RPT processes, and 864 RPT documents collected from 129 universities from the United States and Canada. We analysed these RPT documents to determine the degree to which collegiality and related terms are mentioned, if they are defined, and if and how they may be assessed during the RPT process. Results show that when collegiality and related terms appear in these documents they are most often just briefly mentioned. It is less common for collegiality and related terms to be defined or assessed in RPT documents. Although the terms are mentioned across all types of institutions, there is a statistically significant difference in how prevalent they are at each. Collegiality is more commonly mentioned in the documents of doctoral research-focused universities (60%), than of master's universities and colleges (31%) or baccalaureate colleges (15%). Results from the accompanying survey of faculty also support this finding: individuals from R-Types were more likely to perceive collegiality to be a factor in their RPT processes. We conclude that collegiality likely plays an important role in RPT processes, whether it is explicitly acknowledged in policies and guidelines or not, and point to several strategies in how it might be best incorporated in the assessment of academic careers.

Effect of Audio Clips of Heavily Accented Lecture on Teacher Evaluations

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Freddie Choo ◽  
Kim B. Tan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Teacher Evaluation ◽  
Management System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Teacher Evaluations ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Accounting Students ◽  
Positive Relation ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
English Speaking

ABSTRACT: This study examines the relation between using audio clips of a nonnative, English-speaking instructor's heavily accented lecture (hereafter, HAL) and student evaluations of the instructor's teaching. In Spring 2011, we recorded audio clips of our HAL and made them available to students through iLearn, a learning management system. We found a significant positive relation between audio clips usage and several improved teacher evaluation ratings. This finding is useful to nonnative, English-speaking instructors because accounting students are influential in teacher evaluations, and the majority of accounting administrators in the United States use teacher evaluations for decisions on retention, promotion, and tenure. Data Availability: Available upon request.

scholarly journals Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin C. McKiernan ◽  
Lesley A. Schimanski ◽  
Carol Muñoz Nieves ◽  
Lisa Matthias ◽  
Meredith T. Niles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Academic Evaluation ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Doctoral Research ◽  
Academic Units ◽  
Academic Review ◽  
Journal Impact

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) was originally designed to aid libraries in deciding which journals to index and purchase for their collections. Over the past few decades, however, it has become a relied upon metric used to evaluate research articles based on journal rank. Surveyed faculty often report feeling pressure to publish in journals with high JIFs and mention reliance on the JIF as one problem with current academic evaluation systems. While faculty reports are useful, information is lacking on how often and in what ways the JIF is currently used for review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We therefore collected and analyzed RPT documents from a representative sample of 129 universities from the United States and Canada and 381 of their academic units. We found that 40% of doctoral, research-intensive (R-type) institutions and 18% of master’s, or comprehensive (M-type) institutions explicitly mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms, in their RPT documents. Undergraduate, or baccalaureate (B-type) institutions did not mention it at all. A detailed reading of these documents suggests that institutions may also be using a variety of terms to indirectly refer to the JIF. Our qualitative analysis shows that 87% of the institutions that mentioned the JIF supported the metric’s use in at least one of their RPT documents, while 13% of institutions expressed caution about the JIF’s use in evaluations. None of the RPT documents we analyzed heavily criticized the JIF or prohibited its use in evaluations. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 63% associated it with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. In sum, our results show that the use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and indicates there is work to be done to improve evaluation processes to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.

scholarly journals Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin C. McKiernan ◽  
Lesley A. Schimanski ◽  
Carol Muñoz Nieves ◽  
Lisa Matthias ◽  
Meredith T. Niles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Academic Evaluation ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Doctoral Research ◽  
Academic Units ◽  
Academic Review ◽  
Journal Impact

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) was originally designed to aid libraries in deciding which journals to index and purchase for their collections. Over the past few decades, however, it has become a relied upon metric used to evaluate research articles based on journal rank. Surveyed faculty often report feeling pressure to publish in journals with high JIFs and mention reliance on the JIF as one problem with current academic evaluation systems. While faculty reports are useful, information is lacking on how often and in what ways the JIF is currently used for review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We therefore collected and analyzed RPT documents from a representative sample of 129 universities from the United States and Canada and 381 of their academic units. We found that 40% of doctoral, research-intensive (R-type) institutions and 18% of master’s, or comprehensive (M-type) institutions explicitly mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms, in their RPT documents. Undergraduate, or baccalaureate (B-type) institutions did not mention it at all. A detailed reading of these documents suggests that institutions may also be using a variety of terms to indirectly refer to the JIF. Our qualitative analysis shows that 87% of the institutions that mentioned the JIF supported the metric’s use in at least one of their RPT documents, while 13% of institutions expressed caution about the JIF’s use in evaluations. None of the RPT documents we analyzed heavily criticized the JIF or prohibited its use in evaluations. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 63% associated it with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. In sum, our results show that the use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and indicates there is work to be done to improve evaluation processes to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.

scholarly journals Promotion & Tenure Reform Workgroup Report

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl Ball ◽  
Kim Barrett ◽  
Peter Berkery ◽  
Jessica Clemons ◽  
Sheree Crosby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Current Problem ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hiring Practices ◽  
Professional Advancement ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Tenure Reform ◽  
Open Research ◽  
The Reformation

The remit of the Open Scholarship Initiative  2017 Promotion & Tenure Reform workgroup clearly connected researchers’ personal publishing choices to the oft-traditionalist system of promotion and tenure in the United States, wherein researchers feel compelled to publish in toll access journals or monographs if they wish to achieve tenure, win grants, receive awards, or otherwise advance professionally. Other professional advancement systems worldwide, such as university hiring, contract renewals and government and foundation grantmaking processes similarly reinforce the primacy of toll access research formats. Hiring practices were of concern for our workgroup, given the increasing “adjunctification” and precarious state of tenured university posts in the United States. Due to these parallels, the Reform working group expanded our charge to consider hiring, grants, and other professional advancement scenarios common to researchers’ concerns worldwide.In this report, we unpack how professional advancement practices—including and beyond promotion and tenure review standards—can be realigned to encourage researchers’ adoption of open access (OA), open research, and open educational practices.Here, we set the scope of the current problem, discuss the reasons why professional advancement scenarios should be realigned to reward open research practices, identify challenges to reforming professional advancement scenarios wholesale and worldwide, recommend concrete actions for beginning the reformation process, and share resources related to professional advancement and open access.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document