Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
BMJ. 2020 Jun 25;369:m2081. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2081.
To 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.
Cross sectional study.
International sample of universities.
170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden ranking of world universities list.
Presence 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.
A 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.
This 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.
Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/26ucp/?view_only=b80d2bc7416543639f577c1b8f756e44).
确定一组用于评估全球大学生物医学科学教师晋升和终身职位的传统和非传统标准，这些标准是预先指定的。
横断面研究。
国际大学样本。
来自莱顿世界大学排名的 170 所随机选择的大学。
助理教授、副教授和教授评估以及生物医学学院机构终身职位授予指南中存在的五项传统（例如，出版物数量）和七项非传统（例如，数据共享）标准。
共有 146 所机构设有生物医学科学学院，其中 92 所机构有符合审查条件的指南。同行评议出版物、作者顺序、期刊影响因子、资助金、国家或国际声誉等传统标准在 95%（n=87）、37%（34）、28%（26）、67%（62）和 48%（44）的指南中均有提及。相反，在非传统标准中，仅引文（26%的任何提及；n=24）和就业假的住宿（37%；34）相对常见。很少有提及替代的研究共享指标（3%；n=3）和数据共享（1%；1），在审查的任何指南中都没有发现三个标准（在开放获取媒介中发表、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）。在指南是否可访问方面，不同大陆之间存在显著差异（澳大利亚 100%（6/6），北美 97%（28/29），欧洲 50%（27/54），亚洲 58%（29/50），南美洲 17%（1/6）），而在特定标准的使用方面则存在更为微妙的差异。
本研究表明，对科学家的评估强调传统标准而非非传统标准。这可能会强化已知存在问题的研究实践，而不足以支持开展更高质量的研究和开放科学。各机构应考虑激励非传统标准。
开放科学框架（https://osf.io/26ucp/?view_only=b80d2bc7416543639f577c1b8f756e44）。
