There is a growing debate to move away from using publication records as the main way to evaluate research and researcher quality. This approach doesn’t necessarily identify the best candidates, and is fuelling an incentive system that celebrates volume of papers and where they’re published instead of what’s been discovered, the quality of the work, or its importance for the field. Increasingly scientists, at every career stage, are pushing for ways to recognise and reward scientists who perform high-quality research, and who do so responsibly, even if it doesn’t yield a publication in a key journal. As a result a number of institutes are discussing and/or publicizing policies that may help to reform recruitment practises in science.
On Wednesday, June 28, an eLIFE webinar focuses on the research evaluation from various perspectives. You will hear from researchers who have been involved in research evaluation at principle investigator selection both as candidates and members of the faculty. We will hear about their personal experience and how the institutions they have been working with have been selecting their principal investigators. Emphasis will be given on processes that go beyond checking publication records, their pros and cons. As ever, the focus will be on how these changes affect early-career researchers.
Babraham Institute's own Michelle Linterman and Nicolas LeNovère will share their views
The webinar designed with Early Career Researchers in mind, will run from 16.00-17.00 BST and will follow on Twitter from 17.00-18.00 with Q&A @eLifeCommunity.
Registration is FREE but essential. Book your place here: https://elifesciences.org/events/7e1591c9/ecrwednesday-webinar-refreshing-approaches-to-researcher-evaluation
This webinar is run in collaboration with EU-LIFE consortia.