ReviewF1000Research2018
The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future.
Review in F1000Research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
80 citing papers in PubMed, 338 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do institutions value peer-reviewed open educational resources? Insights from biology lesson authors.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026Article
- But that's not the same as "here's how": a mixed-methods study of motivators and barriers to faculty research and scholarship in a chiropractic educational setting.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2026Article
- Evaluating a Tri-Institutional Cancer Research Capacity-Building Program for Early-Stage Investigators.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Clinician-Educator Career Advancement at a Research-Intensive Cancer Center: Faculty Perceptions and Priorities for a Promotion Pathway.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Navigating the research landscape: How paradigms shape health professions education research.Medical education · 2025Review
- Examining gender and ethnic disparities in scientific authorship to promote a culture of equity, diversity and inclusion at a university school of public health.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Academic General and Subspecialty Pediatric Promotion Timelines and Lifetime Earnings.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface null and negative results.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Convergence research for sustainable regional systems.iScience · 2025Review
- Ten simple rules for faculty members building just and equitable environments in academic science.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Genetic counseling program director competencies as proposed by the program leadership development subcommittee of the Genetic Counselor Educators Association.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Questionable and Improved Research Practices in Single-Case Experimental Design: Initial Investigation and Findings.Perspectives on behavior science · 2025Article
- From submission to publication: A practical guide to peer review publication for medical educators.AEM education and training · 2025Review
- Role of low-impact-factor journals in conservation implementation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Power to the People: Measuring Social Media and Mass Media Impact for Promotion and Tenure in Social and Applied Sciences.Higher education policy · 2025Article
- Manuscript publication of abstracts presented at gynecologic surgery societies' annual meetings.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Factors Impacting Scholarship Delay for Early Career URiM Faculty in Academic Medicine.Family medicine · 2025Review
- Academic influencers: Clinical and Translational Science scholars and trainees at the intersection of influential scholarship and public attention.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- The costs of competition in distributing scarce research funds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes significantly affect how faculty direct their own career and scholarly progression. Although RPT practices vary between and within institutions, and affect various disciplines, ranks, institution types, genders, and ethnicity in different ways, some consistent themes emerge when investigating what faculty would like to change about RPT. For instance, over the last few decades, RPT processes have generally increased the value placed on research, at the expense of teaching and service, which often results in an incongruity between how faculty actually spend their time vs. what is considered in their evaluation. Another issue relates to publication practices: most agree RPT requirements should encourage peer-reviewed works of high quality, but in practice, the value of publications is often assessed using shortcuts such as the prestige of the publication venue, rather than on the quality and rigor of peer review of each individual item. Open access and online publishing have made these issues even murkier due to misconceptions about peer review practices and concerns about predatory online publishers, which leaves traditional publishing formats the most desired despite their restricted circulation. And, efforts to replace journal-level measures such as the impact factor with more precise article-level metrics (e.g., citation counts and altmetrics) have been slow to integrate with the RPT process. Questions remain as to whether, or how, RPT practices should be changed to better reflect faculty work patterns and reduce pressure to publish in only the most prestigious traditional formats. To determine the most useful way to change RPT, we need to assess further the needs and perceptions of faculty and administrators, and gain a better understanding of the level of influence of written RPT guidelines and policy in an often vague process that is meant to allow for flexibility in assessing individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.