Quantitative Evaluation of Faculty Research Productivity

A fair and objective evaluation of faculty research productivity is essential for development department success. At the University Texas at San Antonio, we recently implemented a new system to quantify performance annual evaluations (Han, Wan, Wang 2020). It provides framework quantitative using expectations flexible weight among key measures. Annual expenditures, proposals grants, scholarly work (journal papers, books, book chapters, patents, conference presentations, seminar talks), graduate student support, paper peer citations were used as measures performance. Among these measures, peer-reviewed journal publication core work. widely accepted that both quality quantity should be considered in evaluating publications, so it imperative incorporate into evaluations. This article proposes method weigh when quantifying publications. Although can challenge evaluate impact good paper, there are multiple ways such work, including scoring, citation number, factor. Authorship also way assess contribution productivity. Peer often an indicator long-term but number varies with different fields, cannot newly published papers year. The quality/ranking which frequently surrogate paper. Some suggest factor (IF) weighing influence (Wiegers et al. 2015). IF based on history by journal, fields. Journal quantile ranking (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) relative journals their specific fields thus advantageous over diverse scientific involved (such mechanical engineering department), (see table 1). factored evaluation. More given first author senior/corresponding authors than coauthors. Previously, report from Athens Medical School described they gave “100%, 50%, 33% points original or review last author, second third respectively; any other authorship position corresponds 25% citations” (Mentzelopoulos Zakynthinos 2017, 1222). France describes assign “an index 1 0.5 next 0.25 all positions” (Sahel 2011). An alternative fractional contributions. Harmonic models proposed give i-th credit 1/i (normalized total authors) (Hagen 2010). Another distribution model was 40 percent 20 divided (or 30 authors, 15 remaining 10 (Abramo, Cicero, D'Angelo 2013). Our voted senior coauthors 0.6 2). To encourage collaboration, accept co-first co-corresponding authorship. approach generally applicable, weights adjustable, chairs may select best fit department. These factors incorporated metrics better members (Han There limitation distributions. mathematics, economics, finance list alphabetical order common practice. Therefore, areas, evenly distributed use approaches). quantile. extremely high some science nature), not reflected quantile; bonus alleviate this thanks Department Mechanical Engineering Antonio input support. Hai-Chao Han professor chair Antonio. Email: [email protected]