1 / 21

Faculty appointments and the record of scholarship http:// dx.doi.org /10.7554/eLife.00452

Faculty appointments and the record of scholarship http:// dx.doi.org /10.7554/eLife.00452. Amy Brand, Harvard University PLoS Article Level Metrics Workshop San Francisco, October 10-11, 2013. Outline. Overview of Harvard’s tenure review process Some limitations of the current process

tacita
Télécharger la présentation

Faculty appointments and the record of scholarship http:// dx.doi.org /10.7554/eLife.00452

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Faculty appointments and the record of scholarshiphttp://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00452 Amy Brand, Harvard University PLoS Article Level Metrics Workshop San Francisco, October 10-11, 2013

  2. Outline • Overview of Harvard’s tenure review process • Some limitations of the current process • Opportunities for new tools and services

  3. Opportunities • Individuals and institutions need better tools for curating and networking their own record of scholarship • Institutions need more information about scholarly contribution • ALMs that reliably differentiate sources of input (general; academic; expert; etc.) would be more useful

  4. Appointment dossier • Case statement • Teaching statement and reviews • Curriculum vitae • Internal and external peer evaluations • Selected published works (articles, books) and other scholarship; can include unpublished works • Citation report, for fields where relevant

  5. Works of scholarship •  Books & Monographs •  Edited Books •  Book Chapters •  Journal Articles •  Conference Papers & Proceedings •  Technical Reports •  Reference Works/Entries •  Case Studies •  Translations •  Legal Proceedings •  Government Testimony •  General Press & New Releases •  Pre-publication Items (reports, manuscripts) •  Internet Communications (blogs, tweets, etc.) •  Web pages •  Patents •  Manuals •  Theses •  Scholarly Presentations •  Artwork •  Museum exhibition •  Screenplay •  Musical Works & Performances •  Audiovisual Works •  Datasets •  Software •  Equations & Figures •  Inventions •  Other Creative Works

  6. Template citation table -- candidate and comparands Total cite count for the candidate and comparands; in addition, citation count for each of the candidate’s publications

  7. Who contributed what? • Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, Nathaniel Hilger, Emmanuel Saez, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Danny Yagan. 2011. How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom Affect Your Earnings? Evidence from Project Star. Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4): 1593-1660.

  8. Opportunities • Individuals and institutions need better tools for curating and networking their own record of scholarship • Institutions need more information about scholarly contribution • ALMs that reliably differentiate sources of input (general; academic; expert; etc.) would be more useful

  9. Extending the on-grid record • Affiliation • Service • Society governance • Editorships/reviewing • Funding panels • Education • Subject areas?

  10. Contributor role taxonomies • Wellcome-Harvard taxonomy • Study conception • Methodology • Formal analysis  • Computation  • Experiments • Data collection • Resources • Data curation • Initial draft • Critical review • Data presentation • Publication • Project supervision • Project administration • Funding acquisition • CERN contributor role project

  11. Faculty recommendations for evaluating multimedia humanities scholarship • Review committees should solicit the expertise of professionals from outside their own discipline where appropriate • Review committees should request documentation of the candidate’s role in planning, design, production of new media where relevant • Colleagues should credit multiple authors following evolving conventions in the sciences, carefully specifying roles and responsibilities

  12. Trust, expertise, relevance • Closed systems • Peer review of people • Peer review of papers • Citations • High trust; known expertise • Credentialed peer review • Double-blind process • Open systems • Tweets • Blogs • Bookmarks • Downloads • Etc. • Low trust; unknown expertise • Unvettedbut identifiable actors

More Related