V razmislek! Citations are not enough: Academic promotion panels must take into account a scholar’s presence in popular media.

Up to 1.5 million peer-reviewed articles are published annually. However, many are ignored even within the scientific community: 82 percent of articles published in humanities are not even cited once. Rarely do scholars refer to 32 percent of the peer-reviewed articles in the social and 27 percent in the natural sciences. If a paper is cited, though, this does not imply it has actually been read. According to one estimate, only 20 percent of papers cited have actually been read. We suspect that an average paper in a peer-reviewed journal is read completely at most by no more than 10 people. Hence, impacts of most peer-reviewed publications even within the scientific community are miniscule.
… We know of no senior policy-maker, or senior business leader who ever reads any peer-reviewed papers, even in recognized journals like Nature, Science or The Lancet. No wonder: First of all, most journals are prohibitively expensive to access for anyone outside of academia. Even if the current open-access-movement becomes more successful, the incomprehensible jargon and the sheer volume and lengths of papers (mostly unnecessary!) would still prevent practitioners (including journalists) from reading them.
It may be time to reassess scholars’ performance. For tenure and promotion considerations, scholars’ impacts on policy formulation and public debates should also be assessed. These publications often showcase the practical relevance and potential application of the research results to solve real world problems. (Vir LSE – The Impact Blog)

-
Podpri Kvarkadabro!
Naroči se
Obveščaj me
guest

3 - št. komentarjev
z največ glasovi
novejši najprej starejši najprej
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rx170
rx170
8 - št. let nazaj

Potemtakem so npr. dežurni razlagalci raznoraznih pojavov v Sloveniji vrhunski znanstveniki?

Število citatov seveda je sporen kazalec kvalitete še posebej, ker lahko citiraš npr. zelo znano napačno raziskavo – če izberem najbolj ekstremno možno anamalijo. Da se število citatov znotraj oddelka lahko multiplicira tudi dogovorno je ravno tako jasno vsem (npr. 10 ljudi na oddelku, vsak objavi 1 članek in pocitira ostalih 9 – koliko čistih citatov imam potem vsak član oddelka?). Ampak, da je medijska odmevnost kazalec kakršnekoli kvalitete, je pa vsaj enako sporno.

Ivan
Ivan
8 - št. let nazaj

Povprečje 10 najverjetneje pomeni, da je 80% člankov prebralo precej manj kot 10 ljudi…

Michel Cevzar
8 - št. let nazaj

Mogoče boljši standard za povzetek(manj žargona, več primerov) in več deljenja podatkov za replikacijo raziskave?