Schimanski Lesley A, Alperin Juan Pablo
ScholCommLab, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5K3, Canada.
School of Publishing, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5K3, Canada.
F1000Res. 2018 Oct 5;7:1605. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.16493.1. eCollection 2018.
Review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes significantly affect how faculty direct their own career and scholarly progression. Although RPT practices vary between and within institutions, and affect various disciplines, ranks, institution types, genders, and ethnicity in different ways, some consistent themes emerge when investigating what faculty would like to change about RPT. For instance, over the last few decades, RPT processes have generally increased the value placed on research, at the expense of teaching and service, which often results in an incongruity between how faculty actually spend their time vs. what is considered in their evaluation. Another issue relates to publication practices: most agree RPT requirements should encourage peer-reviewed works of high quality, but in practice, the value of publications is often assessed using shortcuts such as the prestige of the publication venue, rather than on the quality and rigor of peer review of each individual item. Open access and online publishing have made these issues even murkier due to misconceptions about peer review practices and concerns about predatory online publishers, which leaves traditional publishing formats the most desired despite their restricted circulation. And, efforts to replace journal-level measures such as the impact factor with more precise article-level metrics (e.g., citation counts and altmetrics) have been slow to integrate with the RPT process. Questions remain as to whether, or how, RPT practices should be changed to better reflect faculty work patterns and reduce pressure to publish in only the most prestigious traditional formats. To determine the most useful way to change RPT, we need to assess further the needs and perceptions of faculty and administrators, and gain a better understanding of the level of influence of written RPT guidelines and policy in an often vague process that is meant to allow for flexibility in assessing individuals.
评审、晋升和终身教职(RPT)流程对教师规划自身职业和学术发展有着重大影响。尽管不同机构之间以及机构内部的RPT做法存在差异,并且以不同方式影响着各个学科、职级、机构类型、性别和种族,但在调查教师希望对RPT做出哪些改变时,会出现一些一致的主题。例如,在过去几十年中,RPT流程总体上提高了对研究的重视程度,却以教学和服务为代价,这往往导致教师实际的时间分配与评估时所考虑的内容不一致。另一个问题与出版实践有关:大多数人都认为RPT要求应鼓励高质量的同行评审作品,但实际上,出版物的价值往往通过诸如出版场所的声望等捷径来评估,而不是基于每篇文章同行评审的质量和严谨性。由于对同行评审实践的误解以及对掠夺性在线出版商的担忧,开放获取和在线出版使这些问题变得更加模糊不清,这使得传统出版形式尽管发行量有限,但仍是最受欢迎的。而且,用更精确的文章层面指标(如引用次数和替代计量指标)取代诸如影响因子等期刊层面指标的努力,在与RPT流程整合方面进展缓慢。关于是否应该以及如何改变RPT做法以更好地反映教师的工作模式并减轻仅在最具声望传统形式上发表文章的压力,仍然存在疑问。为了确定改变RPT的最有效方法,我们需要进一步评估教师和管理人员的需求与看法,并更好地了解书面RPT指南和政策在这个通常模糊的流程中的影响程度,该流程旨在允许在评估个人时有一定灵活性。