July 9, 2007
Do the Criteria for Tenure in the Sciences Need to Change?
The Scientist is currently running an open-comment survey on whether folks think that the criteria on which tenure is awarded in scientific disciplines needs to change.
Among the questions to consider:
- Do you believe reviewers of a scientist's achievements currently focus too heavily on citations?
- What metrics should we use to evaluate researchers in fields that tend to rack up fewer citations?
- Do you believe reviewers focus too heavily on grant funding when evaluating scientists?
- 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?
- 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?
Source: The Scientist : Does tenure need to change?
Address : <http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53370/>
Posted by Katie Newman at July 9, 2007 12:44 PM