Innovative faculty members can lead the way, argue Andrew McKinney and Amanda Coolidge, by encouraging the inclusion of open educational resources work in tenure and promotion portfolios.

Read on Inside Higher Education

Our vision is that the assessment of research, researchers and research organisations recognises the diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximise the quality and impact of research. This requires basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators.

Read more about CoARA

Many scientists attempt to publish their work in a journal with the highest possible journal impact factor (IF). Despite widespread condemnation of the use of journal IFs to assess the significance of published work, these numbers continue to be widely misused in publication, hiring, funding, and promotion decisions.

Read the ASM Editorial

This project examined the RPT process in the US and Canada in ways that can directly inform actions likely to translate into behavioural change and to a greater opening of research.

The team collected and analyzed more than 850 RPT guidelines from research institutions across Canada and the US and assessed the degree to which they included guidelines specific to open access, open data, and open education. They also explored the use of the Journal Impact Factor in these documents, analyzing how often the controversial was mentioned and how it was defined. Finally, they investigated faculty members’ perceptions about the RPT process, including what publishing strategies they believe will be rewarded and how this influences their dissemination choices.

Read more from the RPT Project

This white paper results from a scan of promising reforms to faculty reward systems that was commissioned by participants in the Transforming Evidence Funders Network (TEFN), facilitated by The Pew Charitable Trusts. These systems, including promotion and tenure (P&T) policies, often focus primarily on faculty members’ scholarly impact measured by citation counts and publication metrics and fail to sufficiently recognize their contributions to policy outcomes, community development, and technological innovation.

Read Pew Charitable Trust’s white paper on efforts to broaden faculty reward systems

The impact of individual scientists is commonly quantified using citation-based measures. The most common such measure is the h-index. A scientist’s h-index affects hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, and thus shapes the progress of science. Our results suggest that the use of the h-index in ranking scientists should be reconsidered, and that fractional allocation measures such as h-frac provide more robust alternatives.

Read the full article

Research is a highly competitive profession where evaluation plays a central role; journals are ranked and individuals are evaluated based on their publication number, the number of times they are cited and their h-index. Yet such evaluations are often done in inappropriate ways that are damaging to individual careers, particularly for young scholars, and to the profession. Furthermore, as with all indices, people can play games to better their scores. This has resulted in the incentive structure of science increasingly mimicking economic principles, but rather than a monetary gain, the incentive is a higher score.

Read the full Royal Society article

President Ronald Daniels (JHU) writes, in describing the two critical lessons drawn from the pandemic “The first is that it is now almost undeniable that a more open approach to science, one that makes the barriers between scientists and between scientists and the public more permeable, presents a historic opportunity to renew the promises of knowledge creation and diffusion that have inhered in the modern university since 1876. This openness is both an accelerant of discovery and a salve for liberal democracy, helping to address the frailties of the reproducibility crisis and bringing science closer to the citizens it aims to serve. Second, COVID-19 has revealed a pressing need for the research enterprise and the institutions that house it to establish clear guardrails that will safeguard the legacy of academic fact creation and discovery—the knitted virtues of training, credentialing, rigor, and independence—that have defined that enterprise over the years and made it such an indelible asset to democracy.”

Read more on Project Muse

There are currently broad moves to reform research assessment, especially to better incentivize open and responsible research and avoid problematic use of inappropriate quantitative indicators. This study adds to the evidence base for such decision-making by investigating researcher perceptions of current processes of research assessment in institutional review, promotion, and tenure processes. Analysis of an international survey of 198 respondents reveals a disjunct between personal beliefs and perceived institutional priorities (‘value dissonance’), with practices of open and responsible research, as well as ‘research citizenship’ comparatively poorly valued by institutions at present. Our findings hence support current moves to reform research assessment.

Read the full Science and Public Policy article

In this piece, NASA’s Chelle Gentemann describes how NASA is incentivizing open science, and how you can too. “Open-science innovation is being driven by a global community with diverse perspectives. The scientific questions are more interesting and nuanced, the solutions better.”

Read more in Nature

Project TARA will help DORA identify, understand, and make visible the criteria and standards universities use to make hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions. This information will be used to create resources and practical guidance on research assessment reform for academic and scholarly institutions.

More on Project TARA

APLU’s Modernizing Scholarship for the Public Good Action Framework (2023) offers guidance to public research universities on ways that they can support scholars to advance public impact research, Cooperative Extension, civic science, community-engaged research, and other forms of public engagement, with particular attention to the ways that diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice are integral to this work. The Modernizing Scholarship for the Public Good initiative was led by Elyse Aurbach, the APLU Civic Science Fellow, and supported by the Rita Allen Foundation, the Kavli Foundation, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, APLU’s FANR, and the University of Michigan.

Read the APLU Report

A critical part of sustaining Open Educational Resources (OER) in higher education is recognizing the contributions by instructors who create and improve them as part of their professional work. In order to aid this effort, DOERS3 has developed an adaptable advisory model, the OER Contributions Matrix to help guide faculty as they attempt to include their OER work in their tenure and promotion portfolios. Building on this work, with generous support from the Hewlett Foundation, DOERS3 has funded 28 authors for a book-length project centered around valuing open education work in the tenure, promotion, and reappointment process. Coming soon in January 2024, these case studies written by faculty, staff, and administrators, will detail their experiences trying to appropriately value OER and open educational work in that process.

Read more about the Driving OER Sustainability for Student Success (DOERS3) Collaborative and view the OER Contributions Matrix

Make Data Count is an initiative that promotes open data metrics to enable the evaluation and reward of research data reuse and impact.

While there has been an increasing interest in research data and the importance of data sharing in recent years, we lack standardized, adopted ways to evaluate the impact of open data across the research ecosystem. We are thus lacking the means to complete meaningful evaluations that can lead to credit for individual researchers, incentives for data sharing, and an understanding of how open data advances discoveries.

To enable the evaluation of data usage, Make Data Count drives the development of community-led transparent and meaningful open data metrics. A perspective piece about open data metrics, also drawing on discussions at the Make Data Count Summit

Read an early copy here

Align the evaluation process to institutional values

Learn from the experience at other institutions

Tailor the call for applications

Select an appropriate committee

Ensure a dedicated review

Articulate the metrics that will be used

Leverage existing tools

Account for departmental needs

Develop clear guidelines for committee members

Share with the community

Soon to be published with more details.

The program aim is to accelerate the uptake of high quality open research practices. The Center for Open Science theory of change highlights five types of action that can promote change. This project is focused on making open research rewarded and, in particular, making it rewarded via the recruitment, promotion, and other recognition activities at institutions that employ researchers.

This project will reform the ways in which institutions recruit, promote and appraise their staff, to better reward open research practices.

Read more and access the resources