Peer Review in Academic Promotion of Excellent Teachers

While research merits have long been the priority in the recognition of institutions and scholars, teaching is often downplayed, appearing as a practice of less worth in Academia. To counteract this tendency, various systems to upgrade the value of education and to promote teaching excellence have been introduced by higher education institutions on a global scale. In this chapter, we explore the values and beliefs unveiled in the promotion of academics in such a system. We employ empirical data collected from an inquiry into the promotion of distinguished university teachers at a comprehensive university in Sweden. An analysis of reviewers’ judgements and legitimations shows that the intersection between promotion, peer review, and excellent teaching affects not only the peer review process, but also the notion of the distinguished university teacher.

Achieving academic promotion: The role of work environment, role conflict, and life balance

Fifty-two faculty at two Canadian universities were interviewed about the impact of work environment, role conflict, and worklife balance on career-related experiences and decisions to apply for promotion to full professor. Faculty described conflicts between their academic responsibilities of teaching, research, and service (including limited time for research despite long work weeks) as well as work-life imbalance. These issues were often gendered; women took slightly longer to achieve the rank of associate professor, accepted tasks of lower reward value, held decreased expectations for promotion, and experienced workplace conflict and bullying more than their male counterparts. Even so, faculty identified colleagues as a valuable career support. Our data lead us to theorize that the decision to apply for academic promotion is informed by a cost-benefit analysis, early career experiences, conformity with academic norms that over-emphasize research productivity, as well as access to career-advancing resources (especially time for research). We recommend that the gendered nature of the academic reward system be re-imagined to promote equality, and provide suggestions as to how to do so.

Factors that Influence Students in Choosing Private Universities in Indonesia

This research is based on questions about what factors are considered by high school students in choosing a private university in Indonesia. This research is a quantitative study using survey methods. Information is extracted and presented by the Factor Analysis method. The stages in this research begin with the study of literature, determining variables and indicators. Field data collected through the distribution of questionnaires are presented in accordance with available facts, organized and systematic. After analysis and discussion, based on factor analysis through statistical tests, there are several factors that are considered by high school students in selecting private universities, namely academic, promotion, registration process, lecture process, tuition fees, campus location, and lecturer reputation. Based on the statistical analysis of factor analysis as a measurement, it can be seen that the first factor that most dominantly influences students' decisions in choosing a private university is the promotion factor, especially through the university's website. The complete private university website contains information about study programs (curriculum, activities, etc.), besides that, the website has an attractive appearance and is easily accessible to be the first target in finding information about the college.

Emotional Distress, Stress, Anxiety and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Early Career Women in Healthcare Sciences Research

ObjectivesThe main objective of this study was to report stress and anxiety levels during the early period of the pandemic on early career women researchers in health sciences research and determine the factors associated with increased stress and anxiety.MethodsA 50-item self-administered internet questionnaire was developed using a mix of Likert-type scales and open-ended response questions. The survey was distributed via email and social media platforms June 10-August 3, 2020. Anxiety and stress associated with the demands of being in health sciences research as well as personal/family demands were assessed through validated measures (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Anxiety Short Form and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)) and open-ended responses.ResultsOne hundred and fifty-one early career women in healthcare sciences research completed the survey. The mean respondent age was 37.3±5.2 years, all had a college degree or higher, 50.3% holding a PhD and 35.8%, M.D. Of the 151 respondents, 128 reported their race/ethnicity and the majority were Caucasian (74.0%). One-third (31.2%) reported being ‘very much’ concerned about reaching their research productivity goals, and 30.1% were ‘very much’ concerned about academic promotion and tenure. Fifty percent reported a ‘moderate’ PROMIS anxiety score and 72.1% reported a ‘moderate’ PSS score. For the open-ended responses, 65.6% reported a worry about their professional goals as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Major concerns revolved around finances, childcare and job security.ConclusionsThroughout the pandemic, early career women investigators have reported high overall stress, anxiety and worries.

Journal selection behavior among early-career academicians in Iran: how they choose the most appropriate journal for their publications

Purpose Journals are the essential tools of researchers, especially academicians, to present their scientific findings. So, choosing the right journal helps not only science development but also their academic promotion. The purpose of this study is to examine the factors that Iranian medical researchers consider when selecting scholarly journals in which to submit their work. Design/methodology/approach A self-administered online questionnaire was emailed in May 2021, with 101 responses received. The sample included all the faculty members with the role of “lecturer” in Iranian medical universities and who have 1–5 articles in the Scopus database as early-career Iranian medical researchers. The questionnaire consisted of 36 items, divided into five sections: basic information, attitudes and beliefs, ways to choose a journal, problems and familiarity with the components of scientometrics/validity metrics related to journals. Findings The findings indicate that these researchers value the expertise of experienced researchers and professionals, like librarians, when selecting publication venues. They often use journal indexes to guide journal selection. They also consider factors like the length of typical peer review and the complexity of submission guidelines when making decisions. Research limitations/implications The study of one country, though detecting requirements of journal selection behavior, cannot be generalized to the entire region. Practical implications The current study has academic implications as far as decisions on journal selection are concerned. University policymakers in Iran may consider re-examining their emphasis on academicians’ promotion policies at Iranian universities of medical sciences. Originality/value These findings may support the work of early-career researchers and those individuals (e.g., librarians) that serve them, as well as publishers and editors of scholarly journals.

An Analysis of the New Regulations Introduced with Higher Education Personnel Law No. 7100 from the Perspective of Faculty Members

This study aims to find out the faculty member opinions regarding the new regulations introduced with the Higher Education Law No. 7100. It employs the phenomenological design, which is a qualitative research design. The study group consists of 44 faculty members who voluntarily participated in the research. The faculty members' opinions were collected using a form that included standardized open-ended interview questions, which were then interpreted through content analysis. The results show that although academics have positive opinions about the new academic promotion system, they find the new regulations relatively inadequate. The participants making positive comments on the new regulations think that the new academic titles have international equivalence, differences between the titles are considered, and what these titles entail is made clearer thanks to these regulations. The participants who assert negative opinions about the regulations, on the other hand, think that these changes fail to bring a satisfactory improvement since they have simply changed instructors' titles, and even caused a loss of status for them. Therefore, they argue that such a change was not necessary. While the participants consider the granting of associate professorship title by the Interuniversity Board (UAK) without performing an oral exam as a positive development, they are mostly negative about the university tenure granting policies for the holders of this title.

Ranking of Legal Periodicals and Prerequisites for Academic Promotion in Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian Law

Scholars need to obtain a certain level of international recognition for academic progression. This is usually achieved by publishing articles in internationally recognized journals, books, and conference papers. The question is which journals should be considered of international relevance and how they should be ranked. For this purpose, a ranking system based on the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), combined with the leading research engine, the Web of Science (WoS), is used. While a ranking system based on the JCR is considered most suitable for natural and technical sciences, it has many shortcomings when considering social sciences and humanities, including legal science. This is observed when such a system is applied in countries that cannot claim to have a profound impact on the global development of legal thought and where scholarly legal production is almost exclusively conducted in the national language, such as in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. This study analyzes the general laws and rules regarding the qualification of journals in Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia, and special laws pertaining to social sciences, especially legal science. Although there are many points of interest regarding different situations in which the national laws on the qualification of journals gain importance, this study focuses on the relevance of these laws in terms of the promotion of legal scholars to positions of university lecturers. It analyzes the requirements for the promotion to a full professor of law. It concludes that the laws of the three countries, through different forms, managed to find a delicate balance between the requirement of publishing articles in internationally recognized journals and the characteristics of legal science as it is predominantly conducted in the national language and addressed to a domestic audience.

Female authorship of covid-19 research in manuscripts submitted to 11 biomedical journals: cross sectional study

Objective To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years. Design Cross sectional study. Setting Nine specialist and two large general medical journals. Population Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: first author’s gender. Secondary outcomes: last and corresponding authors’ gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in “pre-pandemic” period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in “covid-19” and “non-covid-19” manuscripts during pandemic. Results A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts. Conclusions Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.

Academic Promotion of Physicians in Medical Schools: A Special Focus on Primary Health Care in Taiwan

The quality and quantity of papers published in journals play a crucial role in achieving an academic promotion in medical schools. Reports on the criteria for promotion and their impact on different specialties, especially on primary health care, which has low research output, are rare. We investigated the scoring systems generally adopted for academic promotion at most medical schools in Taiwan. The weighted scores were derived from the multiplication of weights from categories of paper, journal impact factor, or ranking in a certain category by impact factor, and author order. To determine the thresholds of papers required for different levels of promotion, we took papers in the highest- or lowest-ranked journals in the primary health care category in 2019 Journal Citation Reports as examples. Considering publications in the highest-ranked journals, a median of 4.6 first or corresponding author papers were required for a professorship, as well as 3.3 for an associate professorship, and 2.5 for an assistant professorship. In contrast, a median of 30, 20, and 13.5 papers in the lowest-ranked journals was required for the corresponding positions. Thus, academic promotions for primary health care educators in Taiwan are highly demanding. The detrimental effects of scoring systems deserve further research.

Do German University Medical Centres promote robust and transparent research? – A cross-sectional study of institutional policies.

Background In light of replication and translational failures, biomedical research practices have recently come under scrutiny. Experts have pointed out that the current incentive structures at research institutions insufficiently incentivise researchers to invest in robustness and transparency and instead incentivise them to optimise their fitness in the struggle for publications and grants. This cross-sectional study aimed to describe whether and how relevant policies of university medical centres in Germany support the robust and transparent conduct of research and how prevalent traditional metrics are. Methods For 38 German university medical centres, we searched for institutional policies for academic degrees and academic appointments, as well as websites for their core facilities and research in general. We screened the documents for mentions of indicators of robust and transparent research and for mentions of more traditional metrics of career progression. Results While Open Access was mentioned in 16% of PhD regulations, other indicators of robust and transparent research (study registration; reporting of results; sharing of data, code, and protocols; and robustness) were mentioned in less than 10% of institutional policies for academic degrees and academic appointments. These indicators were more frequently mentioned on the core facility and general research websites. Regarding the traditional metrics, the institutional policies for academic degrees and academic appointments had frequent mentions of the number of publications, grant money, impact factors, and authorship order. Conclusions References to robust and transparent research practices are, with a few exceptions, generally uncommon in institutional policies at German university medical centres, while traditional criteria for academic promotion and tenure still prevail.