Profiling, instead of ranking, academics with the multi-metric academic profile ProAc
- Undertone Design, Bern, Switzerland (fabiocrameri@undertone.design)
Scientific evaluation built upon numeric metrics is advantageous: It’s time effective (saving precious research time), fair (directly comparable and less biased by subjective reviewer opinions), and does not require, and cannot be altered by, individual linguistic or other skills (unlike written CVs, for example).
The ruling metric, the h-index, is currently misused widely to rank academics based upon numbers of papers (only papers) published and number of received citations: Who published the most adequately cited papers wins permanent jobs, project funding, and awards. Something that is most easily achieved by an academic, who blends in, and works in, an established research entity and along an established line of research, and does not share methodologies.
I believe that, in stark contrast, a multi-metric profile can end the academic detour past high-quantity low-quality science publication (e.g., “publish or perish”), all-dominant research camps, irreversible scientific views, and inaccessible science. If designed carefully, a numeric multi-metric profile provides a multitude of critical academic incentives. As such it offers a unique opportunity to foster academic diversity, boost disruptive science, and rebuild the bridges with the general public (i.e., academia’s stakeholder); likely the most sensible way forward for science.
Today, the quality of research can – numerically – be valued higher than its quantity; the openness of research, methodologies, and tools can be represented by a single, if also brutally honest number; pivotal academic contributions towards method and tool development, and even to some degree, teaching, and outreach can be recognised in quantified form.
Such a multi-metric professional profile characterises individual academics, instead of purely (and poorly) ranking them. Assembling complementary team or project members becomes easier; more successful research likelier. Individual strengths and weaknesses become clear and allow academics (and supervisors) to make use of them and take steps to improve.
Here, I will introduce, outline, and *make available* the first, ready-to-be-used version of the academic profile, ProAc. It is geared towards making academic evaluation fairer and more time-effective, and science the best it can be: diverse, collaborative, disruptive. ProAc is neither perfect nor complete – it never will be. This is why it is designed for continuous improvements and adjustments. ProAc is crafted with all my heart and your gain in mind, but also with the hope for your feedback and support down along its exciting roadmap.
With love, fury, and a bit of coding. 💫
How to cite: Crameri, F.: Profiling, instead of ranking, academics with the multi-metric academic profile ProAc, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 24–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-6465, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-6465, 2023.