Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers' opinions on success indicators.
Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers' opinions on success indicators.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0243664
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Pinxten W
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Aubert Bonn N;Pinxten W
在过去的几年里，我们评估研究人员的方式一直受到关注。批评者认为，目前的研究评估侧重于生产力，这增加了科学家的不健康压力。然而，评估应该改变的确切方式仍然有待讨论。我们与佛兰德研究人员进行了一项调查，以了解他们是如何工作的，以及他们如何评价研究评估中使用的具体指标的相关性。我们发现，大多数研究人员的工作远远超出了他们的预期工作时间表。我们还发现，虽然他们花了大部分时间做研究，受访者希望他们可以投入更多的时间，花更少的时间写赠款和执行其他活动，如行政职责和会议。在研究成功指标时，我们发现，与开放性、透明度、质量和创新相关的指标在推进科学方面被认为非常重要，但在职业发展方面相对被忽视。相反，代表声望和竞争的指标通常被认为对职业发展很重要，但对推动科学发展无关紧要，甚至有害。答复者的公开评论进一步表明，虽然表明公开性、透明度和质量的指标（例如，发布开放获取、发布负面发现、共享数据等）虽然最终应在研究评估中更加重视这些做法，但目前的资源和支持不足以让研究人员认可这些做法。换句话说，目前的研究评估是不够的，忽视了对促进科学进步至关重要的实践。然而，在我们改变评估研究人员的方式之前，必须建立支持性基础设施，以确保研究人员能够致力于可能有利于科学进步的活动。
The way in which we assess researchers has been under the radar in the past few years. Critics argue that current research assessments focus on productivity and that they increase unhealthy pressures on scientists. Yet, the precise ways in which assessments should change is still open for debate. We circulated a survey with Flemish researchers to understand how they work, and how they would rate the relevance of specific indicators used in research assessments. We found that most researchers worked far beyond their expected working schedule. We also found that, although they spent most of their time doing research, respondents wished they could dedicate more time to it and spend less time writing grants and performing other activities such as administrative duties and meetings. When looking at success indicators, we found that indicators related to openness, transparency, quality, and innovation were perceived as highly important in advancing science, but as relatively overlooked in career advancement. Conversely, indicators which denoted of prestige and competition were generally rated as important to career advancement, but irrelevant or even detrimental in advancing science. Open comments from respondents further revealed that, although indicators which indicate openness, transparency, and quality (e.g., publishing open access, publishing negative findings, sharing data, etc.) should ultimately be valued more in research assessments, the resources and support currently in place were insufficient to allow researchers to endorse such practices. In other words, current research assessments are inadequate and ignore practices which are essential in contributing to the advancement of science. Yet, before we change the way in which researchers are being assessed, supporting infrastructures must be put in place to ensure that researchers are able to commit to the activities that may benefit the advancement of science.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Levecque, Katia;Anseel, Frederik;Gislef, Lydia
通讯作者：
Gislef, Lydia
影响因子：
9.8
作者：
Moher, David;Bouter, Lex;Dirnagl, Ulrich
通讯作者：
Dirnagl, Ulrich
影响因子：
7.7
作者：
Martinson, Brian C.
通讯作者：
Martinson, Brian C.
影响因子：
3
作者：
Imai T;Kuwahara K;Miyamoto T;Okazaki H;Nishihara A;Kabe I;Mizoue T;Dohi S;Japan Epidemiology Collaboration on Occupational Health Study Group
通讯作者：
Japan Epidemiology Collaboration on Occupational Health Study Group
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Herbert DL;Barnett AG;Clarke P;Graves N
通讯作者：
Graves N