Timeline for How to assess research "impact" for tenure/promotion committees
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 9, 2012 at 0:20 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Apr 7, 2012 at 18:36 | vote | accept | Jeanne Clelland | ||
| Apr 7, 2012 at 13:47 | comment | added | Liviu Nicolaescu | Wouldn't that be nice! | |
| Apr 7, 2012 at 12:09 | comment | added | Deane Yang | It is very important to have a dean to understand that it is a very ba idea to compare numbers across different fields and that when you are hiring a mathematician, you're not trying to hire one as good or better than the biologist you already have but you're trying to hire one that is as good as or better than the ones at universities you're trying to match up against. | |
| Apr 7, 2012 at 10:35 | comment | added | Liviu Nicolaescu | I agree with you, but that was the compromise we reached with the administration to mollify the over-reliance on the impact factor which for mathematics journals is much smaller than say biology journals. However our annual dean's report asks us to use web of science to generate a citation report and an h-index. This is a disaster since web of science citation statistics are very inaccurate for mathematicians. Some of my chemist friends have similar complaints about this over-priced data basis. | |
| Apr 7, 2012 at 9:29 | comment | added | Deane Yang | I find this too restrictive. The value and impact of a math paper is all too often apparent only after it has been published, so it is unfair to discriminate against papers published in a lower ranked journal, if they have been cited by other good papers. | |
| Apr 7, 2012 at 1:24 | vote | accept | Jeanne Clelland | ||
| Apr 7, 2012 at 13:49 | |||||
| Apr 6, 2012 at 23:14 | history | answered | Liviu Nicolaescu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |