Are reproducibility and open science starting to matter in tenure and promotion review?

July 14th, 2017, Brian Nosek


uva-summer


Tenure and promotion season is underway.  Promotion committees, in the U.S. at least, use the summer to send portfolios to 3 to 10 scholars at other institutions for independent review of the candidate’s credentials.  These independent assessments are a vital part of the review process, particularly for research-intensive universities.  Candidates need to demonstrate that their work is impacting others in the discipline.

Advocates for improving open science and reproducibility accurately worry that the movement will fail if standards for hiring, tenure, and promotion do not change.  If the likelihood of tenure and promotion is dependent exclusively on publication volume, prestige and success obtaining grants, incentives for openness will have--at best--an indirect effect on researcher’s behavior through journals and funders.  Successful nudging of the culture of incentives requires that institutions likewise reward scholars for conducting open, rigorous, reproducible research.

Like every other professor that is now old (full professor), I am asked to write tenure and promotion letters every summer by review committees at other institutions.  I just finished my fourth review: three were for promotion to full professor, one for tenure and promotion to associate professor; all for research-intensive universities.  With this small sample, I am observing some promising signals that universities are incorporating open science into tenure and promotion consideration.  Obviously, this is a small sample, but it indicates that we are past the existence proof stage of shifting incentives toward openness of research.  Here are some insights from this summer’s promotion review requests:

  1. I was asked to review because of the committee’s interest in evaluating the candidates’ work and impact relevant to open science.  Committees usually ask for reviews from experts in the candidate’s substantive domain.  None of the four candidates work in the same subdiscipline as me.  The substantive work for three was close enough that I could comment on it sensibly, but there are dozens of other scholars that would provide much deeper insight on the substantive issues.  From the candidate profiles, it is clear that I was asked because the committee’s also want evaluation of the researcher’s impact in open science.  In fact, one of the four invitation letters explicitly stated “We are particularly interested in having you speak to Professor XXXXXXX’s contributions in the area of “Open Science” and innovations in methodology and communication in our field.”

  2. There was a lot to say about the candidates’ contributions to open science.  In all four letters, I was able to discuss concrete contributions that each candidate had made to open science -- infrastructure, service, metascience, social media leadership, and their own research practices.  These letters were a delight to write, particularly because the candidates’ embodied so many characteristics that we idealize for open science practices more broadly.

  3. Committees signaled evaluating quality over quantity in their review.  Instructions to reviewers emphasized quality, and each package contained a sensible combination of content for my review: invitation letter, candidate CV, three to five representative articles to read, and sometimes personal research and teaching statements.  Of course, counting heuristics, prestige signals from journal names, and total grant dollars can still dominate decision-making.  But, for the most part, the provided packages give the external reviewer enough information to conduct a depth assessment and not so much to overwhelm the reader to fall back on counting heuristics as the sole criteria.

There is much to do in improving hiring, tenure, and promotion practices to align incentives with scholarly values. Particularly useful next steps would be aggregation and review of tenure and promotion policies across institutions. For example, it would be really useful to know the variation in portfolios given to reviewers and committee members, and the nature of the instructions for decision making. Also active research on predictors of promotion decisions would reveal whether there is any truth to the common perception that tenure decisions are highly determined by the number of publications and the prestige of their outlets. Showing that it IS NOT the case could produce a rapid sea-change in what early-career researchers understand as their incentives for advancement. Showing that it IS the case could produce self-reflection among institutions to evaluate the extent to which their policies and practices are aligned with their institutional values.

In any case, my experience with promotion review requests this summer suggests that change is occurring, particularly in assigning scholarly value to open science contributions and behavior, and it’s great to see.


Recent Blogs

The Content of Open Science

What Second Graders Can Teach Us About Open Science

What's Going on With Reproducibility?

Open Science and the Marketplace of Ideas

3 Things Societies Can Do to Promote Research Integrity

How to Manage and Share Your Open Data

Interview with Prereg Challenge Award Winner Dr. Allison Skinner

Next Steps for Promoting Transparency in Science

Public Goods Infrastructure for Preprints and Innovation in Scholarly Communication

A How-To Guide to Improving the Clarity and Continuity of Your Preregistration

Building a Central Service for Preprints

Three More Reasons to Take the Preregistration Challenge

The Center for Open Science is a Culture Change Technology Company

Preregistration: A Plan, Not a Prison

How can we improve diversity and inclusion in the open science movement?

OSF Fedora Integration, Aussie style!

Replicating a challenging study: it's all about sharing the details.

Some Examples of Publishing the Research That Actually Happened

How Preregistration Helped Improve Our Research: An Interview with Preregistration Challenge Awardees

Are reproducibility and open science starting to matter in tenure and promotion review?

The IRIS Replication Award and Collaboration in the Second Language Research Community

We Should Redefine Statistical Significance

Some Cool New OSF Features

How Open Source Research Tools Can Help Institutions Keep it Simple

OSF Add-ons Help You Maximize Research Data Storage and Accessibility

10 Tips for Making a Great Preregistration

Community-Driven Science: An Interview With EarthArXiv Founders Chris Jackson, Tom Narock and Bruce Caron

A Preregistration Coaching Network

Why are we working so hard to open up science? A personal story.

One Preregistration to Rule Them All?

Using the wiki just got better.

Transparent Definitions and Community Signals: Growth in the Open Science Community

We're Committed to GDPR. Here's How.

Preprints: The What, The Why, The How.

The Prereg Challenge Is Ending. What's Next?

We are Now Registering Preprint DOIs with Crossref

Using OSF in the Lab

Psychology's New Normal

How Open Commenting on Preprints Can Increase Scientific Transparency: An Interview With the Directors of PsyArxiv, SocArxiv, and Marxiv

The Landscape of Open Data Policies

Open Science is a Behavior.

Why pre-registration might be better for your career and well-being

Interview: Randy McCarthy discusses his experiences with publishing his first Registered Report

Towards minimal reporting standards for life scientists

This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.