Bland dig i diskussionen om forskningsevaluering i The Scientist

Spørgsmålet om forskningsevaluering tænder mange forskere. Tidskriftet The Scientist (som hører til de mere jobbevidste) havde i går en forespørgsel om emnet blandt sine on-line-læsere, og der er allerede i løbet af aftnene og natten kommet 33 kommentarer, se http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53370/#comments. Her er deres forespørgsel:

Do citations keep you up at night? It often seems that institutions place a higher price on specific metrics -- namely, citations and grant money -- than ever before. Scientists can have brilliant ideas and groundbreaking theories, but without the money to pay for the experiments, and the skill to craft a paper that squeezes into one of a handful of elite journals, researchers face a difficult path to promotion and tenure.

But there are so many other ways to evaluate a scientist. There's mentoring, speaking at conferences, and communicating with other scientists in a public forum, including online, to name a few. Are tenure decisions getting off track? Are we evaluating scientists fairly? And once scientists become tenured, is there enough structure to ensure they continue to contribute significant science? [...]

Now tell us how you'd like to change the system for evaluating researchers. Let us know your thoughts by clicking here and posting a comment to this article, or by sending your thoughts to mail@the-scientist.com. Tell us your age (a range is fine) and the country where you work, so we can see the factors that affect scientists in different regions. We will use your feedback to construct a feature in our September issue that captures the sentiment of the life science community about tenure. Nothing is sacred -- including tenure itself.

Here are some possible questions to consider:
-Do you believe reviewers of a scientist's achievements currently focus too heavily on citations? Click here and have your say.
- In certain fields, such as translational medicine, citations are hard to come by. What metrics should we use to evaluate researchers in fields that tend to rack up fewer citations? Click here and have your say.
-Do you believe reviewers focus too heavily on grant funding when evaluating scientists? Click here and have your say.
-If you could add one metric to how scientists are evaluated, what would it be, and why? Click here and have your say.
- Is tenure a good idea to begin with? Does it support a lot of tenured scientists who don't contribute as much as those still working for tenure? Click here and have your say.

That's enough from us; let us know what you think on these and other issues concerning the reward structure in academia.

Og kommentarerne kan som sagt læses her: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53370/#comments