Great article titled: ““Am I Famous Yet?” Judging Scholarly Merit in Psychological Science. An Introduction” by Robert J. Sternberg; which discusses the various metrics used, their shortcomings and what changes in how academics will be judged in the future. A good read. My favourite part was a paragraph in the conclusion:
In my own theory of successful intelligence, people are successfully intelligent to the extent that they formulate and achieve goals that make sense for them in the context in which they live and work by capitalizing on strengths and compensating for or correcting weaknesses (Sternberg, 1997). In this view, the most effective scientists will be those not who follow any one particular path to success, but who find a path to success that uniquely works for each of them.
But can we do better, or can we combine these and other measures in some way that makes the measures particularly effective in their use for evaluating candidates for hiring, reappointment, tenure, and promotion? Do we need other kinds of measures, perhaps of ethical behavior (Sternberg & Fiske, 2015) or of quality of mentorship? Are existing measures equally fair for all psychological scientists, or do they tend to favor some groups over other groups? Should we be using any quantitative indices at all? These are the kinds of questions our symposium participants address.
To read the full article:
Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world’s leading independent academic publisher.