El Chemistry World va publicar fa poc un article titulat Moving towards fairer academic rewards on tractva la probemàca de fer servir l’impace de les publicacions científiques com a mètrica fonamental per a la promoció del professorat-investigador.
The current preoccupation with journal metrics has skewed the system by which researchers are rewarded. It has led to a one-size-fits-all definition of excellent research that is unable to incentivise teamwork, scientific integrity and high-risk blue-skies research.
The problem with the metrics-heavy approach is that it has changed the type of science that scientists do and funders want to fund.
Més endavant, parla de l’autora “honorària”:
You should be recognising the team that’s involved and not saying [one author] is more important.’ He adds that the emphasis on producing large numbers of publications, and having to produce a new paper regularly, is stifling the types of ground-breaking research that take many years to complete.
En alguns casos, les universitats van més enllà de les pures mètriques:
an appraisal system that allows for excellence in group leadership, academic culture and different types of science. The school also assesses researchers on their outward engagement, asking them if they consulted with patients and other external stakeholders when developing their research questions
Em sembla interessant també que cal combinar el suport a investigadors “maverick” amb el suport a “followers”:
sort of incentives that might favour what he calls ‘maverick’ scientists – those who undertake high risk, high reward, paradigm-changing research – over ‘followers’ who make incremental progress in well-established areas.
Idees per rumiar-hi.