Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences: a cross-sectional analysis of 146 universities

View ORCID ProfileDanielle B Rice, Hana Raffoul, View ORCID ProfileJohn PA Ioannidis, View ORCID ProfileDavid Moher
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/802850
Danielle B Rice
1Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada
Roles: Doctoral student
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Danielle B Rice
Hana Raffoul
2Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada
3Faculty of Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Roles: Undergraduate student
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John PA Ioannidis
4Departments of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
5Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
6Biomedical Data Science, and Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
7Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Roles: Co-Director
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for John PA Ioannidis
David Moher
8Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada
9School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Roles: Director
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for David Moher
  • For correspondence: dmoher@ohri.ca
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

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

Design Cross-sectional study.

Setting Not applicable.

Participants 170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden Ranking of world universities list were considered.

Main outcome measures Two independent reviewers searched for all guidelines applied when assessing scientists for promotion and tenure for institutions with biomedical faculties. Where faculty-level guidelines were not available, institution-level guidelines were sought. Available documents were reviewed and the presence of 5 traditional (e.g., number of publications) and 7 progressive (e.g., data sharing) criteria was noted in guidelines for assessing assistant professors, associate professors, professors, and the granting of tenure.

Results A total of 146 institutions had faculties of biomedical sciences with 92 having eligible guidelines available to review. Traditional criteria were more commonly reported than progressive criteria (t(82)= 15.1, p= .001). Traditional criteria mentioned peer-reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact, grant funding, and national or international reputation in 95%, 37%, 28%, 67%, and 48% of the guidelines, respectively. Conversely, among progressive criteria only citations (any mention in 26%) and accommodations for extenuating circumstances (37%) were relatively commonly mentioned; while there was rare mention of alternative metrics for sharing research (2%) and data sharing (1%), and 3 criteria (publishing in open access mediums, registering research, and adhering to reporting guidelines) were not found in any institution reviewed. We observed notable differences across continents on whether guidelines are accessible or not (Australia 100%, North America 97%, Europe 50%, Asia 58%, South America 17%), and more subtle differences on the use of specific criteria.

Conclusions This study demonstrates that the current evaluation of scientists emphasizes traditional criteria as opposed to progressive 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 incentivizing progressive criteria.

Registration Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/26ucp/)

What is already known on this topic

  • Academics tailor their research practices based on the evaluation criteria applied within their academic institution.

  • Ensuring that biomedical researchers are incentivized by adhering to best practice guidelines for research is essential given the clinical implications of this work.

  • While changes to the criteria used to assess professors and confer tenure have been recommended, a systematic assessment of promotion and tenure criteria being applied worldwide has not been conducted.

What this study adds

  • Across countries, university guidelines focus on rewarding traditional research criteria (peer-reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact, grant funding, and national or international reputation).

  • The minimum requirements for promotion and tenure criteria are predominantly objective in nature, although several of them are inadequate measures to assess the impact of researchers.

  • Developing and evaluating more appropriate, progressive indicators of research may facilitate changes in the evaluation practices for rewarding researchers.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted October 21, 2019.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences: a cross-sectional analysis of 146 universities
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences: a cross-sectional analysis of 146 universities
Danielle B Rice, Hana Raffoul, John PA Ioannidis, David Moher
bioRxiv 802850; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/802850
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences: a cross-sectional analysis of 146 universities
Danielle B Rice, Hana Raffoul, John PA Ioannidis, David Moher
bioRxiv 802850; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/802850

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (2528)
  • Biochemistry (4972)
  • Bioengineering (3481)
  • Bioinformatics (15203)
  • Biophysics (6895)
  • Cancer Biology (5388)
  • Cell Biology (7738)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (4529)
  • Ecology (7145)
  • Epidemiology (2059)
  • Evolutionary Biology (10225)
  • Genetics (7511)
  • Genomics (9785)
  • Immunology (4842)
  • Microbiology (13213)
  • Molecular Biology (5138)
  • Neuroscience (29420)
  • Paleontology (203)
  • Pathology (836)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (1463)
  • Physiology (2137)
  • Plant Biology (4747)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1010)
  • Synthetic Biology (1338)
  • Systems Biology (4012)
  • Zoology (768)