To improve research assessment practices in academic institutions, it is critical to understand the institutional metrics used to assess research quality for promotion. This article examines traditional and non-traditional criteria used to assess biomedical scientists for promotion and tenure in 92 randomly selected international institutions.
The study found that the evaluation of scientists emphasizes traditional criteria over non-traditional criteria. For example, almost every surveyed institution had promotion criteria that included the presence of peer-reviewed publications. Many of the surveyed institutions also required a minimum number of publications per year. The prevalence of traditional criteria in promotion practices may reinforce research practices that are known to be problematic while insufficiently supporting the conduct of better quality research and open science. The study suggests that institutions should consider incentivising non-traditional criteria.
- Examples of traditional criteria examined in this study include quantitative or qualitative mention of publication number, authorship order in publication, journal impact factor, national or international recognition or research, and grant funding status.
- Examples of non-traditional criteria examined in this study include data sharing, open-access publication, citations, registration of studies, alternative metrics for sharing research (e.g., social media and print media).
Rice DB, Raffoul H, Ioannidis JPA, Moher D (2020). Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2081