Recognition and reward in the academy Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history
Recognition and reward in the academy Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history
复制标题
DOI：
10.1108/ajim-01-2017-0006
复制
发表时间：
2017-01-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Hammarfelt, Bjorn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hammarfelt, Bjorn
目的--在评估学术生涯时，研究人员的全部研究成果具有很大的价值，被公认为成功的候选人通常等同于一名多产的作者。然而，在评估职业生涯的背景下，出版物的价值如何到目前为止还是一个研究不足的话题。本文旨在探讨这些问题。设计/方法论/方法-通过对生物医学、经济学和历史学三个学科的评估报告的内容分析，分析如何利用外部性来评估出版作品。外部性被定义为诸如评论和文献计量指标等特征，这些特征可以在不评估实际文本中的认识论主张的情况下进行评估。发现--这三个领域在评估时都强调相似的方面：作者、出版声望、研究的暂时性、领域内的声誉和边界保持。然而，如何评估质量的这些方面，以及评估它们的方法在不同的学科之间是不同的。此外，研究领域根据不同的时间视野进行定位，即当评估研究时，历史着眼于过去，经济学着眼于未来。研究局限/影响--评估候选人过程中涉及的复杂性也反映在研究结果中，虽然所采取的比较方法有效地突出了特定领域的差异，但也可能掩盖了相反的叙述，以及关于质量的微妙的学科间讨论。原创性/价值-这项研究为评估学术职业时如何评估出版物提供了一个新的视角。尤其引人注目的是，不同领域的研究是如何通过不同的时间范围进行评估的。这一发现在关于更全面和更正式的研究评估制度的辩论中具有重要意义。
Purpose - The publication oeuvre of a researcher carries great value when academic careers are assessed, and being recognised as a successful candidate is usually equated with being a productive author. Yet, how publications are valued in the context of evaluating careers is so far an understudied topic. The paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approach - Through a content analysis of assessment reports in three disciplines - biomedicine, economics and history - this paper analyses how externalities are used to evaluate publication oeuvres. Externalities are defined as features such as reviews and bibliometric indicators, which can be assessed without evaluating the epistemological claims made in the actual text.Findings - All three fields emphasise similar aspects when assessing: authorship, publication prestige, temporality of research, reputation within the field and boundary keeping. Yet, how these facets of quality are evaluated, and the means through which they are assessed differs between disciplines. Moreover, research fields orient themselves according to different temporal horizons, i.e. history looks to the past and economics to the future when research is evaluated.Research limitations/implications - The complexities involved in the process of evaluating candidates are also reflected in the findings, and while the comparative approach taken effectively highlights domain specific differences it may also hide counter-narratives, and subtle intradisciplinary discussion on quality.Originality/value - This study offers a novel perspective on how publications are valued when assessing academic careers. Especially striking is how research across different fields is evaluated through different time horizons. This finding is significant in the debate on more overarching and formal systems of research evaluation.