Excerpt from article by Prof Kelly-Ann Allen: The index could reflect good science practices — for instance, by recognizing replication studies. And public reach could be measured in terms of open-science prac- tices — data-sharing, pre-registering protocols and commu- nicating through podcasts, blogs and media contributions. In some fields, publishing in practice-based journals could be rewarded to ensure that research reaches profes- sional communities. Similarly, editorial and peer-review work for these journals — and work for scientific societies, regardless of prestige — could be valued. Ultimately, the full list of metrics should be decided by the academic community, reflecting a collective vision for a healthier workplace. Funding bodies and institutions could then incorporate the index into their evaluation criteria, providing both the infrastructure and incentives for adoption. Many of the metrics are already tracked in existing data repositories, but improved systems to collect and amalgamate the data are needed. The index should remain dynamic and evolving, allowing new ways to evaluate and measure other desirable work- place attributes to emerge over time — work–life balance, for instance, or a positive teaching culture.
Move beyond ‘publish or perish’ by measuring behaviours that benefit academia
Perspective in #Nature 🧪 suggesting a new "G+ index" — G representing generosity, giving and other ‘good things’ in academia
Wouldn't this be great 🤔
By Prof. Kelly-Ann Allen
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
07.12.2024 02:02 — 👍 3 🔁 1 💬 1 📌 0
