Question Title

* 1. Informed Consent Agreement

Please read this consent agreement carefully before you decide to complete this survey.

Overview: DORA is conducting an informal survey on research assessment practices for our upcoming meeting in October. 

Purpose: The purpose of this informal survey is to gather information from researchers about research assessment practices in academic hiring, promotion, tenure, and funding decisions. The data will inform our understanding about respondents’ perceptions of the current state of research assessment at different career stages. In addition, we hope to identify potential strategies to end academic institutes’ reliance on journal-based metrics for research assessment.

The results of the survey will be presented in aggregate at the meeting “Driving Institutional Change for Research Assessment Reform,” taking place October 21-23, 2019.  Anonymous, aggregated results may be shared elsewhere in reports, DORA promotional material, informal publications such as perspective pieces and blog posts, and broadcasts in any medium.

Time required: We anticipate the survey will take approximately 15 – 20 minutes to complete.

Risks: There are no anticipated risks in completing this survey.

Benefits: There are no direct benefits to you by completing this survey.

Confidentiality: This survey is anonymous. We are not collecting personal identifiable information. The survey is constructed such that we will not have access to the identity of any respondents. If any respondents otherwise make their responses personally-identifiable, we will not use or retain the personally-identifiable information. As a result, you will not be personally identified in any reports or publications resulting from this study. Data will be shared in aggregate.

Voluntary participation: Completing the survey is completely voluntary. You may stop at any point in the survey by closing your browser window.

Payment: There is no payment for completing this survey.

Please note that we will need your response by Monday, October 14, 2019 in order to include it in the aggregated results.

Questions about the survey can be directed to Anna Hatch, DORA Community Manager (ahatch@ascb.org).

Question Title

* 2. What best describes your career stage?

Question Title

* 3. Is your institution's mission statement aligned with its research assessment practices for hiring, promotion, and funding decisions?

Question Title

* 4. Are journal-based metrics required by your research institute in the following areas?

  Yes No I don't know
Hiring decisions
Annual performance reviews
Promotion and tenure decisions

Question Title

* 5. How important do you think the following items are when making decisions to hire tenure-track research faculty.

  Not at all important Somewhat important Very important
Familiarity with an applicant and/or their research, e.g. reading their research articles or seeing them present their work at a seminar or conference
The reputation of the applicant’s graduate and/or postdoctoral advisor(s)
The reputation of the applicant’s current and/or previous academic institutions
The reputation of the individuals writing letters of recommendation for the applicant
The content of the letters of recommendation
The prestige of the journal(s) where the applicant has published their research
The focus of the applicant’s proposed research program
The societal impact of the applicant’s research
The applicant’s contributions to open science, e.g. preprints, FAIR data
The applicants contributions to reproducible science, e.g. registered reports, statistical power
The ability of an applicant to secure grant funding
The applicant’s contributions to teaching
The applicant’s contributions to mentorship
The applicant’s contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion
The applicant’s contributions to public outreach and engagement
The applicant’s record of academic service, e.g. serving on committees, contributions to peer review

Question Title

* 6. How important do you think the following items are when making making promotion and tenure decisions in academia.

  Not at all important Somewhat important Very important
The reputation of the individuals writing letters of recommendation for the candidate
The content of the letters of recommendation
Prestige of the journal(s) where the candidate publishes their research
The focus of the candidate’s research program
The societal impact of the applicant’s research
The candidate’s contributions to open science, e.g. preprints, FAIR data
The applicants contributions to reproducible science, e.g. registered reports, statistical power
The ability of the candidate to secure grant funding
The candidate’s contributions to teaching
The candidate’s contributions to mentorship
The candidate’s contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion
The candidate’s record of academic service, e.g. serving on committees, contributions to peer review

Question Title

* 7. What research outputs and activities should be but are not considered in hiring, promotion, tenure, or other types of academic evaluation at your institution?
Note: each output does not have to fit under every category

Question Title

* 8. What is more useful to evaluate research quality and impact: metrics or written description of significance?

Question Title

* 9. Rank from 1 - 7, where 1 is the most likely, what it would take for your institution to decrease reliance on journal-based metrics in research evaluation?

T