Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities
Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.m2081
复制
发表时间：
2020-06-25
影响因子：
105.7
通讯作者：
Moher, David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rice, Danielle B.;Raffoul, Hana;Moher, David
目的：确定是否存在一套预先规定的传统和非传统标准，用于评估科学家在世界各地大学生物医学科学系的晋升和终身教职。（例如出版物数量）和七种非传统（例如，数据共享）评估助理教授、副教授和教授的指导方针标准以及生物医学系机构的终身教职。92个国家有合格的指南可供审查。传统的同行评审出版物标准，作者顺序，期刊影响因子，赠款资金和国家或国际声誉分别在95%（n=87），37%（34），28%（26），67%（62）和48%（44）的指南中提到。相反，在非传统标准中，只有引用（26%; n=24）和就业假期的住宿（37%; 34）相对常见。很少提到共享研究（3%; n=3）和数据共享（1%; 1）的替代指标，并且在任何审查的指南中都没有发现三个标准（在开放获取媒体中发表，注册研究和遵守报告指南）。在评估晋升为正教授的指南中，传统标准比非传统标准更常见（传统标准54.2%，非传统项目9.5%;平均差异44.8%，95%置信区间39.6%至50.0%; P=0.001）。各大洲在指南是否可获得方面存在显著差异（澳大利亚100%（6/6），北美97%（28/29），欧洲50%（27/54），亚洲58%（29/50），南美17%（1/6）），结论：这项研究表明，对科学家的评价强调传统标准，反对非传统标准。这可能会强化已知存在问题的研究做法，而不足以支持开展更高质量的研究和开放科学。各机构应考虑鼓励采用非传统标准。
OBJECTIVETo 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 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.CONCLUSIONThis 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.