A fair and objective evaluation of faculty research productivity is essential for faculty development and department success. At the University of Texas at San Antonio, we recently implemented a new system to quantify faculty performance for annual evaluations (Han, Wan, and Wang 2020). It provides a framework for quantitative performance evaluation using objective expectations and flexible weight among key measures. Annual research expenditures, proposals and new research grants, scholarly work (journal papers, books, book chapters, patents, conference presentations, seminar talks), graduate student support, and paper peer citations were used as key measures for research performance. Among these quantitative measures, the peer-reviewed journal publication is the core of scholarly work. It is widely accepted that both quality and quantity should be considered in evaluating journal publications, so it is imperative to incorporate journal paper quality into quantitative evaluations. This article proposes a quantitative method to weigh paper quality when quantifying journal publications. Although it can be a challenge to evaluate the quality and impact of a good journal paper, there are multiple ways to quantify the quality of such work, including using peer evaluation scoring, peer citation number, and journal impact factor. Authorship is also a way to assess faculty contribution and productivity. Peer citation is often used as an indicator of the long-term impact of a paper, but the number varies with different fields, and it cannot be used to evaluate the quality of newly published papers in the evaluation year. The quality/ranking of the journal in which a paper is published is frequently used as the surrogate for the quality of the paper. Some suggest using the impact factor (IF) in weighing the influence of a paper (Wiegers et al. 2015). The IF of a journal is based on the history of the peer citations of the papers published by the journal, and it varies with different fields. Journal quantile ranking (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) is the relative ranking of journals in their specific fields and thus advantageous over journal impact factor when diverse scientific fields are involved (such as in a mechanical engineering department), so we weigh the quality of the papers based on the journal ranking quantile (see table 1). Authorship is also factored into the evaluation. More weight is given to the first author and senior/corresponding authors than to coauthors. Previously, a report from the University of Athens Medical School described that they gave “100%, 50%, and 33% of the impact points and citation of an original or review article to the first or last author, second author, and third author, respectively; any other authorship position corresponds to 25% of the impact points and citations” (Mentzelopoulos and Zakynthinos 2017, 1222). A report from France describes that they assign “an index of 1 to the first or last author, an index of 0.5 for the second and the next to last author, and 0.25 for all other author positions” (Sahel 2011). An alternative is using fractional contributions. Harmonic models were proposed to give the i-th author a credit of 1/i (normalized based on the number of total authors) (Hagen 2010). Another fractional distribution model was proposed as 40 percent for the first and last authors and 20 percent to be divided among the other authors (or 30 percent for the first and last authors, 15 percent for the second and second to the last authors, and the remaining 10 percent divided among the other authors) (Abramo, Cicero, and D'Angelo 2013). Our faculty voted to give the first author and the senior author a weight of 1 and other coauthors a weight of 0.6 (see table 2). To encourage collaboration, we also accept co-first authorship and co-corresponding authorship. Although the approach is generally applicable, the specific weights are adjustable, as chairs and their faculty may select the weights that best fit their department. These quantitative factors can be incorporated into quantitative evaluation metrics to better evaluate the research productivity of faculty members (Han et al. 2020). There is a limitation to these weight distributions. Journal papers in the fields of mathematics, economics, and finance often list authors by alphabetical order as a common practice. Therefore, for papers in these areas, the credit should be evenly distributed among all authors (or use alternative approaches). There is also a limitation in the use of journal quantile. Some journal papers can be extremely high impact (such as some papers in science and nature), which is not reflected by the quantile; we use bonus points to alleviate this limitation (Han et al. 2020). The author thanks the faculty in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at San Antonio for their input and support. Hai-Chao Han is professor and chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Email: [email protected]