[GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: The case for Open Research: the mismeasurement problem

[Jeffrey Mackie-Mason]

The Computing Research Association (CRA), which has computer science
departments and schools and colleges as members (i.e., chairs and deans),
in July 2014 approved a new "Best Practices Memo" along these lines (
http://goo.gl/GkyF7r).  It recommends (in part): "Evaluate candidates for
tenure and promotion on the basis of the contributions in their most
important three to five publications".  An earlier (1999) related memo was
*very* influential in convincing deans and provosts at essentially every US
university to treat competitive, peer-reviewed *conference* publications in
computer science on equal footing with journal publications.  I don't know
how widely (if at all) the new memo on limiting the number of articles
"counted" has been adopted, but these things take time.



---
Jeff MacKie-Mason
University Librarian
Chief Digital Scholarship Officer
Professor, School of Information and Professor of Economics
UC Berkeley
www.jeff-mason.com

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Sandy Thatcher <sgt3 at psu.edu> wrote:

> One partial solution, pioneered many years ago by a few places like
> Harvard Medical School, is to impose a strict limit on the number of
> articles that can be submitted by a faculty member seeking tenure or
> promotion.  If only six can be submitted, then there is no value in writing
> fifty. Does anyone know  how widely adopted this practice has become?
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>
> At 3:25 PM +0100 7/11/16, Danny Kingsley wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> The first in a series of blogs about 'The case for Open Research' went
> live today.
>
> The case for Open Research: the mismeasurement problem -
> https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=713
>
> A taster:
> *********************************
>
> Let's face it. The biggest blockage we have to widespread Open Access is
> not researcher apathy, a lack of interoperable systems, or an unwillingness
> of publishers to engage (although these do each play some part) - it is the
> problem that *the only thing that counts in academia is publication in a
> high impact journal*.
>
> This situation is causing multiple problems, from huge numbers of authors
> on papers, researchers cherry picking results and retrospectively applying
> hypotheses, to the reproducibility crisis and a surge in retractions.
>
> This blog was intended to be an exploration of some solutions prefaced by
> a short overview of the issues. Rather depressingly, there was so much
> material the blog has had to be split up, with several parts describing the
> problem(s) before getting to the solutions.
>
> Prepare yourself, this will be a bumpy ride. <...snip...>
> ***************************************
>
> I'm not sure that 'enjoy' is the right sign off.
>
> Danny
>
> --
> Dr Danny Kingsley
> Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
> Cambridge University Library
> West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
> P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
> M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
> E: dak45 at cam.ac.uk
> T: @dannykay68
> B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
> S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
> ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sanford G. Thatcher
> Frisco, TX  75034-5514
> https://scholarsphere.psu.edu
>
>
> "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865)
>
> "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who
> can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853)
>
> "Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the
> limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce
> (1906)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20160711/b1149758/attachment-0001.html