加拿大渥太华大学David Moher团队分析了生物医学院系晋升和终身教职的学术标准。该成果于2020年6月25日发表在《英国医学杂志》上。

为了确定是否存在一组预先指定的传统和非传统标准，用于评估科学家在全球大学的生物医学院系中的晋升和终身教职， 研究组从世界大学莱顿排名中随机选择了170所大学，进行了一项横断面研究。在评估助理教授、副教授和教授以及在生物医学院系中获得终身教职的准则中，存在五个传统（例如出版物数量）和七个非传统（例如数据共享）标准。

共有146家机构拥有生物医学院系，其中92家有可审查的适用指南。这些指南中同行评审出版物、署名顺序、期刊影响因子、拨款资助以及国家或国际声誉的传统标准提及率分别为95%、37%、28%、67%和44%。相反，在非传统标准中，只有引用（26%）和休假安排（37%）被相对普遍提及。共享研究（3%）和数据共享（1%）的替代指标很少提及，在审查的所有指南中都未发现这三个标准：在开放存取媒介物中发表、注册研究和遵守报告指南。

在评定晋升全职教授的指导原则中，传统标准比非传统标准更为常见，其中传统标准占54.2％，非传统标准仅占9.5％。各大洲间指南的可访问性存在显著差异，其中澳大利亚的可访问率为100％，北美为97％，欧洲为50％，亚洲为58％，南美为17％，且在使用特定标准方面存在更多细微差异。

该研究表明，科学家的评估强调传统标准，而不是非传统标准。这可能会加剧已有问题的研究实践，同时不足以支持开展更高质量的研究和开放科学。研究机构应考虑激励非传统标准。

附：英文原文

Title: Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities

Author: Danielle B Rice, Hana Raffoul, John P A Ioannidis, David Moher

Issue&Volume: 2020/06/25

Abstract: Objective To determine the presence of a set of pre-specified traditional and non-traditional criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences among universities worldwide.

Design Cross sectional study.

Setting International sample of universities.

Participants 170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden ranking of world universities list.

Main outcome measure Presence of five traditional (for example, number of publications) and seven non-traditional (for example, data sharing) criteria in guidelines for assessing assistant professors, associate professors, and professors and the granting of tenure in institutions with biomedical faculties.

Results A total of 146 institutions had faculties of biomedical sciences, and 92 had eligible guidelines available for review. Traditional criteria of peer reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact factor, grant funding, and national or international reputation were mentioned in 95% (n=87), 37% (34), 28% (26), 67% (62), and 48% (44) of the guidelines, respectively. Conversely, among non-traditional criteria, only citations (any mention in 26%; n=24) and accommodations for employment leave (37%; 34) were relatively commonly mentioned. Mention of alternative metrics for sharing research (3%; n=3) and data sharing (1%; 1) was rare, and three criteria (publishing in open access mediums, registering research, and adhering to reporting guidelines) were not found in any guidelines reviewed. Among guidelines for assessing promotion to full professor, traditional criteria were more commonly reported than non-traditional criteria (traditional criteria 54.2%, non-traditional items 9.5%; mean difference 44.8%, 95% confidence interval 39.6% to 50.0%; P=0.001). Notable differences were observed across continents in whether guidelines were accessible (Australia 100% (6/6), North America 97% (28/29), Europe 50% (27/54), Asia 58% (29/50), South America 17% (1/6)), with more subtle differences in the use of specific criteria.

Conclusions This study shows that the evaluation of scientists emphasises traditional criteria as opposed to non-traditional criteria. This may reinforce research practices that are known to be problematic while insufficiently supporting the conduct of better quality research and open science. Institutions should consider incentivising non-traditional criteria.

DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2081

Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2081