Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Assessing Current Practices in Academic Review, Promotion, and Tenure across the United States and Canada - Carol Muñoz Nieves - OpenCon 2017

172 views

Published on

This presentation by Carol Muñoz Nieves was part of OpenCon 2017's Next-Generation Initiatives Advancing Open panel.

The project “Assessing Current Practices in Review, Promotion and Tenure (RPT) Across the United States and Canada” departs from the belief that the adoption of open access and other open science principles among academics would be more widespread if ‘being open’ was explicitly rewarded in career progression of university professors. In the case of Canadian and American institutions of higher education, career progression generally takes the form of reviews of faculty’s work, promotions, and the achievement of tenure—a permanent, lifetime, position at an institution that cannot be terminated, except under crucial circumstances. The importance placed on the RPT process by all faculty suggests that changes in the policy documents and guidelines that inform these practices may provide the impetus for behavioral change, leading to broader interest and adoption of open access values. In the context of a broad and ongoing project, this presentation will focus in some of the results of the content analysis of 864 RPT guidelines and forms of 129 institutions across the US and Canada. These finding will hopefully provide baseline knowledge for thinking in actualized ways of effecting change towards a greater opening of research in North American universities.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Assessing Current Practices in Academic Review, Promotion, and Tenure across the United States and Canada - Carol Muñoz Nieves - OpenCon 2017

  1. 1. Assessing Current Practices in Academic Review, Promotion, and Tenure Across the United States and Canada PI: Juan Pablo Alperin │ Co-PI: Meredith Niles, Erin McKiernan Content analyst and presenter: Carol Muñoz Nieves
  2. 2. To what extent do review, promotion and tenure (RPT) guidelines and forms in the U.S. and Canada include options, recommendations, or requirements for open access, open data, or open educational materials?
  3. 3. 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs)
  4. 4. 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs) •  Mentions to public engagement in scholarship —27% of Universities, 36% of AUs
  5. 5. 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs) •  Mentions to public engagement in scholarship —27% of Universities, 36% of AUs •  Mentions to public / the public —56% of Universities, 54% of AUs
  6. 6. •  Mentions to public engagement in scholarship —27% of Universities, 36% of AUs •  Mentions to public / the public —56% of Universities, 54% of AUs 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs) 65% 67% 64% 40% 53% 36% 25% 12% 85% 78% 76% 72% 12% 17% 21% 7% Journal publica7ons Publica7ons in general Books Presenta7ons Performances Crea7ve work Conference proceedings New, emerging, alterna7ve forms Outputs of scholarly work Ins7tu7ons Academic Units
  7. 7. •  Mentions to public engagement in scholarship —27% of Universities, 36% of AUs •  Mentions to public / the public —56% of Universities, 54% of AUs 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs) 22% 33% 12% 10% 4% 43% 21% 7% 6% 2% Any form of metric Cita7ons counts Impact factor Acceptance / rejec7on rates of journals Faculty publica7on rates Measures of quality and impact Measures of impact of scholarly outputs 65% 67% 64% 40% 53% 36% 25% 12% 85% 78% 76% 72% 12% 17% 21% 7% Journal publica7ons Publica7ons in general Books Presenta7ons Performances Crea7ve work Conference proceedings New, emerging, alterna7ve forms Outputs of scholarly work Ins7tu7ons Academic Units
  8. 8. 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs) •  Mentions to public engagement in scholarship —27% of Universities, 36% of AUs •  Mentions to public / the public —56% of Universities, 54% of AUs •  Broad interest in public engagement not necessarily aligned with the concrete outputs of scholarly work and the measures of impact. 22% 33% 12% 10% 4% 43% 21% 7% 6% 2% Any form of metric Cita7ons counts Impact factor Acceptance / rejec7on rates of journals Faculty publica7on rates Measures of quality and impact Measures of impact of scholarly outputs 65% 67% 64% 40% 53% 36% 25% 12% 85% 78% 76% 72% 12% 17% 21% 7% Journal publica7ons Publica7ons in general Books Presenta7ons Performances Crea7ve work Conference proceedings New, emerging, alterna7ve forms Outputs of scholarly work Ins7tu7ons Academic Units
  9. 9. •  Mentions to public engagement in scholarship —27% of Universities, 36% of AUs •  Mentions to public / the public —56% of Universities, 54% of AUs •  Broad interest in public engagement not necessarily aligned with the concrete outputs of scholarly work and the measures of impact. 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs) 22% 33% 12% 10% 4% 43% 21% 7% 6% 2% Any form of metric Cita7ons counts Impact factor Acceptance / rejec7on rates of journals Faculty publica7on rates Measures of quality and impact Measures of impact of scholarly outputs 65% 67% 64% 40% 53% 36% 25% 12% 85% 78% 76% 72% 12% 17% 21% 7% Journal publica7ons Publica7ons in general Books Presenta7ons Performances Crea7ve work Conference proceedings New, emerging, alterna7ve forms Outputs of scholarly work Ins7tu7ons Academic Units
  10. 10. •  Mentions to public engagement in scholarship —27% of Universities, 36% of AUs •  Mentions to public / the public —56% of Universities, 54% of AUs •  Broad interest in public engagement not necessarily aligned with the concrete outputs of scholarly work and the measures of impact. 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs) 22% 33% 12% 10% 4% 43% 21% 7% 6% 2% Any form of metric Cita7ons counts Impact factor Acceptance / rejec7on rates of journals Faculty publica7on rates Measures of quality and impact Measures of impact of scholarly outputs 65% 67% 64% 40% 53% 36% 25% 12% 85% 78% 76% 72% 12% 17% 21% 7% Journal publica7ons Publica7ons in general Books Presenta7ons Performances Crea7ve work Conference proceedings New, emerging, alterna7ve forms Outputs of scholarly work Ins7tu7ons Academic Units
  11. 11. •  Mentions to public engagement in scholarship —27% of Universities, 36% of AUs •  Mentions to public / the public —56% of Universities, 54% of AUs •  Broad interest in public engagement not necessarily aligned with the concrete outputs of scholarly work and the measures of impact. •  Open Access —2% of Universities (3) and AUs (6) 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs) 22% 33% 12% 10% 4% 43% 21% 7% 6% 2% Any form of metric Cita7ons counts Impact factor Acceptance / rejec7on rates of journals Faculty publica7on rates Measures of quality and impact Measures of impact of scholarly outputs 65% 67% 64% 40% 53% 36% 25% 12% 85% 78% 76% 72% 12% 17% 21% 7% Journal publica7ons Publica7ons in general Books Presenta7ons Performances Crea7ve work Conference proceedings New, emerging, alterna7ve forms Outputs of scholarly work Ins7tu7ons Academic Units
  12. 12. •  Mentions to public engagement in scholarship —27% of Universities, 36% of AUs •  Mentions to public / the public —56% of Universities, 54% of AUs •  Broad interest in public engagement not necessarily aligned with the concrete outputs of scholarly work and the measures of impact. •  Open Access —2% of Universities (3) and AUs (6) …predatory open-access journals… …self-published, inadequately refereed, open-access writing, or on- line publications will be scrutinized carefully… …open-access, peer-reviewed publications are valued like all other peer-reviewed publications… “ 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs) 22% 33% 12% 10% 4% 43% 21% 7% 6% 2% Any form of metric Cita7ons counts Impact factor Acceptance / rejec7on rates of journals Faculty publica7on rates Measures of quality and impact Measures of impact of scholarly outputs 65% 67% 64% 40% 53% 36% 25% 12% 85% 78% 76% 72% 12% 17% 21% 7% Journal publica7ons Publica7ons in general Books Presenta7ons Performances Crea7ve work Conference proceedings New, emerging, alterna7ve forms Outputs of scholarly work Ins7tu7ons Academic Units

×