Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science

Davies, Sarah W.; Putnam, Hollie M.; Ainsworth, Tracy D.; Baum, Julia K.; Bove, Colleen B.; Crosby, Sarah C.; Côté, Isabelle M.; Duplouy, Anne; Fulweiler, Robinson W.; Griffin, Alyssa; Hanley, Torrance C.; Hill, T. M.; Humanes, Adriana; Mangubhai, Sangeeta; Meta×as, Anna; Parker, Laura M.; Rivera, Hanny E.; Silbiger, Nyssa J.; Smith, Nicola; Spalding, Ana K.; Traylor-Knowles, Nikki; Weigel, Brooke L.; Wright, Rachel M.; Bates, Amanda E.

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001282

Cited by 155 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 121 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, bibliometric indicators can be manipulated, causing problems in measuring societal impact (Moed, 2017). Some authors claim that "citations and impact factors metrics are flawed and biased against already marginalized groups and fail to accurately capture the breadth of individuals' meaningful scientific impacts" (Davies et al, 2021). Moreover, the "quick-and-dirty" use of metrics can introduce inaccurate results into the assessment of academic research performance (Moed, 2020).…”

Section: Main Methods Of Research Performance Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Performance Assessment Issues: The Case of Kazakhstan

Alibekova

Özçelik

Сатыбалдин

et al. 2021

SAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study deals with research performance assessment issues as important aspects of research management and research quality. The case of Kazakhstan clearly demonstrates the impact of the prevailing bibliometric-centered approach. The aim of this study is to suggest an inclusive scale of individual research performance assessment. The method used is a quantitative study of the opinions of researchers and academics on the range of research related activities they traditionally carry out. The study expands the knowledge base on academic human resource management, and can be of high relevance for substantiating the criteria of performance assessment of researchers by HR managers of universities and public research institutions. The research results can be helpful for setting and complying with individual and institutional criteria for research performance evaluation. POLICY HIGHLIGHTS• A Survey among 264 researchers in Kazakh universities and public research institutions (response rate: 63%) asked them to rate their activities in five groups: supervising activity, professional advancement, publications, public recognition, and scientific & organizational activities.• The results demonstrate that their priorities correspond to national and international priorities: publishing papers in local and international peer-reviewed journals indexed in WoS and Scopus, and monographs.• Findings revealed that "Supervising" and "Professional Advancement" activities have the highest importance among all criteria groups.• Respondents gave the highest preference to participating at overseas and international conferences, seminars and workshops, thus expressing their desire to disseminate their research findings internationally and to build international links.

show abstract

Section: Main Methods Of Research Performance Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Performance Assessment Issues: The Case of Kazakhstan

Alibekova

Özçelik

Сатыбалдин

et al. 2021

SAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Publications discussing the gender gap in academia have gained propulsion in the 2000s (e.g., Xu 2008), despite studies on the topic existing since the 1950s (see Weston et al 1986;Widnall 1988;Rossiter 1993). The existence of an academic leaky pipeline, or scissor-shaped curve (i.e., the phenomenon in which the proportion of women in academia progressively decreases with advancing career stages) has been reported in nearly every study with data on gender proportions along the academic career, from undergraduate and graduate levels to employment and positions of power (Pell 1996;Howe-Walsh and Turnbull 2016;Davies et al 2021). This mismatch is even higher due to the increase of people worldwide reaching higher education (Bradley 2000), followed by lower numbers of academic job positions in the past years (Taylor 2011;Yamada 2019).…”

Section: Edited By Juliano Morimotomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Female researchers during COVID-19 pandemic, for example, published less than male academics, and among them, Black women and mothers were the most negatively impacted (Staniscuaski et al 2021). To dismantle this system that benefits privilege over diversity and inclusion, the first step is to examine the composition of research spaces and determine where representation is lacking (Chaudhury and Colla 2021;Davies et al 2021).…”

Section: Edited By Juliano Morimotomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These stereotypes manifest as early as 6 years old (Bian et al 2017), creating, reinforcing, and perpetuating the gender gap (von Rumker 1978). The gender gap (revealed considering economic participation and opportunity, education level, health, survival, and political empowerment) is a global phenomenon, and it is of everyone's benefit (Nielsen et al 2017;Ferrari et al 2018;Davies et al 2021), though not of everyone's interest, if addressed through matching scenario strategies. The COVID-19 pandemic aggravated gender inequalities, retrogressing the path to balance (World Economic Forum 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Gender Gap in Brazilian Entomology: an Analysis of the Academic Scenario

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although women are about half of world’s population, they are underrepresented in many sectors including academia and the research scenario in general. Gender gap in Entomology has been pointed out in other publications; however, data for Brazil has never been demonstrated. Here we provide a diagnosis for the Brazilian Entomology scenario in order to contribute to propositions towards disentangling the gender gap in general. We analyzed scientometric data for Brazilian Entomology focusing on gender disparity and on personal perceptions related to the gender gap through an online questionnaire. We detected a pervasive gender bias in which the scissor-shaped curve is the most representative effect of it: women were the majority in lower degree stages but the minority in higher degree stages (permanent positions and positions of prestige and power). We also observed mentorship bias and discussed these results in light of intersectionality and the COVID-19 pandemic. Gender differences were perceived differently by the questionnaire respondents considering age, gender, and parenting. With this data and analyses, we have provided elements to stimulate and support change to a healthier and more equitable academic space.

show abstract

“…• An earlier report on our projects that appraised the international context of DEI challenges among Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) educational routes and work forces (Riches, 2020;Riches et al, 2021a); • An invited article (Pourret et al, 2021a) concerning inequities in geochemistry's current nomination and award procedures; • Proposal of a series of reforms to the nomination and award systems of the EAG and GS, incorporating broadening of the definition of a "contribution", thereby furthering an inclusive approach (akin to Davies et al, 2021) -society leaderships will soon announce agreed changes; • Expansion of the EAG Geochemical Fellow's Awards Nominations Committee to address nominations to all EAG awards; • New EAG blogs (Fernandes, 2021;Perez, 2021;Riches et al, 2021b), along with working definitions for diversity, equity, inclusion, and marginalisation (EAG DEI Committee, 2021) related to the developing DEI Strategic Plan; • An invited contribution identifying a lack of diversity among editorial boards (Pourret et al, 2021b); • Virtual keynote talks to explore the work of the DEI Committees -such invites are rotated among the team and other opportunities for friendly discussion are welcome.…”

Section: Completed Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%