Lim B H, D'Ippoliti C, Dominik M, Hernández-Mondragón A C, Vermeir K, Chong K K, Hussein H, Morales-Salgado V S, Cloete K J, Kimengsi J N, Balboa L, Mondello S, Dela Cruz T E, Lopez-Verges S, Sidi Zakari I, Simonyan A, Palomo I, Režek Jambrak A, Germo Nzweundji J, Molnar A, Saktiawati A M I, Elagroudy S, Kumar P, Enany S, Narita V, Backes M, Siciliano V, Egamberdieva D, Flores Bueso Y
Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kajang, Malaysia.
Department of Statistical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Nature. 2025 Feb;638(8050):459-468. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08422-9. Epub 2025 Jan 22.
The assessment of research performance is widely seen as a vital tool in upholding the highest standards of quality, with selection and competition believed to drive progress. Academic institutions need to take critical decisions on hiring and promotion, while facing external pressure by also being subject to research assessment. Here we present an outlook on research assessment for career progression with specific focus on promotion to full professorship, based on 314 policies from 190 academic institutions and 218 policies from 58 government agencies, covering 32 countries in the Global North and 89 countries in the Global South. We investigated how frequently various promotion criteria are mentioned and carried out a statistical analysis to infer commonalities and differences across policies. Although quantitative methods of assessment remain popular, in agreement with what is found in more geographically restricted studies, they are not omnipresent. We find differences between the Global North and the Global South as well as between institutional and national policies, but less so between disciplines. A preference for bibliometric indicators is more marked in upper-middle-income countries. Although we see some variation, many promotion policies are based on the assumption of specific career paths that become normative rather than embracing diversity. In turn, this restricts opportunities for researchers. These results challenge current practice and have strategic implications for researchers, research managers and national governments.
研究绩效评估被广泛视为维持最高质量标准的重要工具，人们认为选拔和竞争能够推动进步。学术机构在招聘和晋升方面需要做出关键决策，同时还要面对外部压力，因为它们也要接受研究评估。在此，我们基于来自190个学术机构的314项政策以及来自58个政府机构的218项政策，呈现了一份关于职业发展研究评估的展望，特别关注晋升为正教授的情况，这些政策覆盖了全球北方的32个国家和全球南方的89个国家。我们调查了各种晋升标准被提及的频率，并进行了统计分析，以推断各项政策之间的共性和差异。尽管定量评估方法仍然很受欢迎，这与在地域范围更有限的研究中所发现的情况一致，但它们并非无处不在。我们发现全球北方和全球南方之间以及机构政策和国家政策之间存在差异，但不同学科之间的差异较小。在中高收入国家，对文献计量指标的偏好更为明显。尽管我们看到了一些差异，但许多晋升政策基于特定职业路径的假设，这些路径变得标准化，而不是包容多样性。反过来，这限制了研究人员的机会。这些结果对当前的做法提出了挑战，并对研究人员、研究管理人员和各国政府具有战略意义。
