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

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. 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. 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs)

4. 864 RPT guidelines of 129 universities & 382 academic units (AUs) •  Mentions to public engagement in scholarship —27% of Universities, 36% of AUs

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. •  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. •  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. 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. •  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. •  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. •  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. •  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

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

Esté a ler uma amostra.

Confira estes a seguir

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

Mais Conteúdo rRelacionado

Diapositivos para si (20)

Semelhante a Assessing Current Practices in Academic Review, Promotion, and Tenure across the United States and Canada - Carol Muñoz Nieves - OpenCon 2017 (20)

Mais de Right to Research (20)

Mais recentes (20)