Rewarding open access scholarship in promotion and tenure: Driving institutional change

Odell, Jere D.; Coates, Heather L.; Palmer, Kristi L.

doi:10.5860/crln.77.7.9518

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Junior faculty may put a high value on open access publications [ 69 ]. If open access were to become part of RIAS [ 70 ] and included in faculty assessments, the institution would need to support open access fees. Committed support from leadership and senior faculty would be needed to implement the policy points discussed in Table 2 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessment of researchers is necessary for decisions of hiring, promotion, and tenure. A burgeoning number of scientific leaders believe the current system of faculty incentives and rewards is misaligned with the needs of society and disconnected from the evidence about the causes of the reproducibility crisis and suboptimal quality of the scientific publication record. To address this issue, particularly for the clinical and life sciences, we convened a 22-member expert panel workshop in Washington, DC, in January 2017. Twenty-two academic leaders, funders, and scientists participated in the meeting. As background for the meeting, we completed a selective literature review of 22 key documents critiquing the current incentive system. From each document, we extracted how the authors perceived the problems of assessing science and scientists, the unintended consequences of maintaining the status quo for assessing scientists, and details of their proposed solutions. The resulting table was used as a seed for participant discussion. This resulted in six principles for assessing scientists and associated research and policy implications. We hope the content of this paper will serve as a basis for establishing best practices and redesigning the current approaches to assessing scientists by the many players involved in that process.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…"Building a culture that values OA requires the participation of library and non-library faculty. IUPUI is continuing to realign promotion and tenure values for OA with top-down (changes in policy) and bottom-up (changes in practice) approaches" (Odell, Coates and Palmer, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Librarians Versus the Machine: Leveraging Faculty Relationships to Increase Open Access Participation

Maxson¹,

Pike²

2017

International Conference on Arts and Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(IUPUI) wanted to determine how liaison librarian intervention affected faculty participation in an Open Access (OA) Policy as compared to generic communication by the Library's Center for Digital Scholarship (CDS). Liaison guidance for the OA policy participation was piloted with promising results in the School of Nursing. Using the pilot as a model, a working group was formed to determine how liaison librarians should be involved in the new, faculty-adopted OA Policy. Based on the Harvard Model, the OA Policy followed an opt-out style, meaning that scholarly output is included by default unless the author explicitly chooses not to contribute. Successful open access policy implementations at other universities show that author participation increases when library staff and faculty help to design and deploy the service. The charter group tested a workflow designed by the CDS, and offered guidance for refining this workflow and related OAservices. During this trial period, faculty participation rates from the sample liaison group and the CDS were tracked and compared, which determined that librarian relationships with faculty members did result in higher participation rates.

show abstract

“…A possible model is described in Odell, Coates, and Palmer (2016), where IUPUI adopted language favoring OA in its tenure and promotion criteria because the library worked to create "an explicit link between IUPUI's institutional values and OA" (p. 322). Odell et al (2016) argue that a combination of advocating for the incorporation of OA in faculty governance, campus strategic planning, and tenure and promotion criteria as well as educational workshops, OA monitoring, and increased support for item-level evaluation and altmetric use by tenure committees has created an OA-valuing culture at IUPUI. Describing OA advocacy efforts at University of North Texas, Rodriguez (2017) echoes many of the same calls for greater faculty education and OA monitoring, but also suggests that libraries go further to provide financial support for OA.…”

Section: Conclusion and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publications and Evaluations: Conducting a Baseline Assessment of Open Access Adoption and Support at an R2 University

Vandagriff

2020

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION This study reflects a mid-size university library’s first attempt to assess faculty research output to shape future scholarly communications efforts. METHODOLOGY The assessment combined a qualitative analysis of the university’s reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents with a quantitative analysis of faculty publications recorded in Digital Measures from 2015-2019. The RPT documents were coded to determine which indicators of scholarly value were emphasized, then compared with data on where and how faculty were publishing. RESULTS Within RPT documents, peer review was frequently emphasized, but open access and predatory publishing were not mentioned. The majority of publications occurred in hybrid journals, and publishing was concentrated among only a handful of publishers, with 11 publishers responsible for 62% of faculty’s research output. OA journal publications have risen slightly in recent years but still accounted for only 20.7% of UCCS publications. However, predatory publishing was very low, accounting for less than 5% of UCCS publications. DISCUSSION More education is needed on the importance of open access and how to assess the quality of a journal. RPT criteria consistently mentioned certain indicators of scholarly quality, but these indicators were often vague and preferential to traditional publishing models. Both open access and predatory publishing remain low, and additional education may help faculty feel more confident in exploring alternative publishing models. CONCLUSION Assessing the research output of faculty and how scholarship is being evaluated within each college can help libraries to tailor their efforts to promote open access publishing. However, the lack of OA support in the RPT criteria suggests a larger cultural shift is needed to make faculty not only aware of OA, but also encouraged and supported in publishing OA.

show abstract

Rewarding open access scholarship in promotion and tenure: Driving institutional change

Cited by 15 publications

References 2 publications

Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure

Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure

Librarians Versus the Machine: Leveraging Faculty Relationships to Increase Open Access Participation

Publications and Evaluations: Conducting a Baseline Assessment of Open Access Adoption and Support at an R2 University

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About