Abstract
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) was published in 2013 and described how funding agencies, institutions, publishers, organizations that supply metrics, and individual researchers could better evaluate the outputs of scientific research. Since then DORA has evolved into an active initiative that gives practical advice to institutions on new ways to assess and evaluate research. This article outlines a framework for driving institutional change that was developed at a meeting convened by DORA and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The framework has four broad goals: understanding the obstacles to changes in the way research is assessed; experimenting with different approaches; creating a shared vision when revising existing policies and practices; and communicating that vision on campus and beyond.
Highlights
We find three types of responses to the evaluative breach (1) Accounts of potential (2) Re-affirmative accounts (3) Accounts of uncertainty
How research staff deal with a challenge of evaluative norms in a Dutch biomedical research institute
‘I do think that it has fired up the discussion whether we need to score everyone on the basis of: how many papers do you have? What is your H-factor?’
Summary
We find three types of responses to the evaluative breach (1) Accounts of potential (2) Re-affirmative accounts (3) Accounts of uncertainty. How research staff deal with a challenge of evaluative norms in a Dutch biomedical research institute Recent discussions on RI link integrity to evaluation ‘How researchers are evaluated reflects what we value most in the research enterprise and powerfully influences researchers’ behavior, including research integrity. [....]...[E]vidence implies that modifying current incentives and rewards is an important step to optimize societal value and strengthen research integrity’ (Hong Kong Manifesto)
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have