@article {Aubert Bonn2020.06.22.165654, author = {No{\'e}mie Aubert Bonn and Wim Pinxten}, title = {Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers{\textquoteright} opinions on success indicators}, elocation-id = {2020.06.22.165654}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.1101/2020.06.22.165654}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory}, abstract = {The way in which we assess researchers has been under the radar in the past few years. Critics argue that current research assessments focus on productivity and that they increase unhealthy pressures on scientists. Yet, the precise ways in which assessments should change is still open for debate. We circulated a survey with Flemish researchers to understand how they work, and how they would rate the relevance of specific indicators used in research assessments. We found that most researchers worked far beyond their expected working schedule. We also found that, although they spent most of their time doing research, respondents wished they could dedicate more time to it and less time to other activities such as administrative duties and meetings. When looking at success indicators, we found that indicators related to openness, transparency, quality, and innovation were perceived as highly important in advancing science, but as relatively overlooked in career advancement. Conversely, indicators which denoted of prestige and competition were generally rated as important to career advancement, but irrelevant or even detrimental in advancing science. Open comments from respondents further revealed that, although indicators which indicate openness, transparency, and quality (e.g., publishing open access, publishing negative findings, sharing data, etc.) should ultimately be valued more in research assessments, the resources and support currently in place were insufficient to allow researchers to endorse such practices. In other words, current research assessments are inadequate and ignore practices which are essential in contributing to the advancement of science. Yet, before we change the way in which researchers are being assessed, supporting infrastructures must be put in place to ensure that researchers are able to commit to the activities that may benefit the advancement of science.Conceptualization No{\'e}mie Aubert Bonn1, Wim Pinxten1Funding acquisition Wim Pinxten. Funding granted by the Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds (BOF) 15NI05Project administration No{\'e}mie Aubert Bonn, Wim PinxtenMethodology No{\'e}mie Aubert Bonn and Wim Pinxten built the survey; Vincent Larivi{\`e}re2 provided guidance on the survey content, terminology, and recruitment methods; Patricia Tielens3 helped us understand how to distribute the survey in respect with GDPR; Raymond De Vries4, S{\o}ren Holm5 and Daniele Fanelli6 provided feedback on earlier versions of the survey; Dana Hawwash7, Paolo Corsico5, and Audrey Wolff8 provided feedback on final versions of the survey.Resources Many people helped share the survey, thereby helping us find participants. These include Deans, Directors of doctoral school, and secretaries of the universities we contacted, Raffaella Ravinetto9, Hannelore Storms1, Carl Lachat7, Stefanie Van der Burght10, and many more people who shared, re-tweeted, or talked about our survey to colleagues. We also wish to thank the participants themselves for their time, efforts, and for their willingness to share their thoughts!Investigation No{\'e}mie Aubert BonnData curation No{\'e}mie Aubert BonnFormal analysis Geert Molenberghs11 provided guidance and continued support on the appropriate statistical analyses to use; No{\'e}mie Aubert Bonn performed the analysis.Visualization No{\'e}mie Aubert BonnValidation No{\'e}mie Aubert Bonn, Wim PinxtenSupervision Wim PinxtenWriting {\textendash} original draft No{\'e}mie Aubert BonnWriting {\textendash} review \& editing No{\'e}mie Aubert Bonn, Wim Pinxten Research Group of Healthcare and Ethics, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.{\'E}cole de biblioth{\'e}conomie et des sciences de l{\textquoteright}information, Universit{\'e} de Montr{\'e}al, Montr{\'e}al, CanadaJurist Data Protection Officer, Hasselt University, Hasselt, BelgiumCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor (MI), USACentre for Social Ethics and Policy, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKDepartment of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Sciences, London, UKDepartment of Food technology, Safety and Health, Universiteit Gent, Ghent, BelgiumGIGA Consciousness - Coma Science Group, Universit{\'e} de Li{\`e}ge, Li{\`e}ge, BelgiumPublic Health Department, Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp, Antwerp, BelgiumResearch Co-ordination Office, Universiteit Gent, Ghent, BelgumL-BioStat, KU Leuven, Leuven, and Data Science Institute, Hasselt University, BelgiumCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.}, URL = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/01/2020.06.22.165654}, eprint = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/01/2020.06.22.165654.full.pdf}, journal = {bioRxiv} }