Faculty Members’ Performance Appraisal System: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature

Janavi, Elmira; Abdi, Sadjedeh

doi:10.22034/ijism.2024.2013962.1281

Faculty Members’ Performance Appraisal System: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Elmira Janavi ¹

Sadjedeh Abdi ²

¹ Policy Evaluation and STI Monitoring Department, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran

² National Research, Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22034/ijism.2024.2013962.1281

Abstract

Abstract
Deciding upon faculty members’ promotion or tenure is one of the most important tasks in higher education, and it has piqued the interest of researchers from different fields. This has led to an increased number of deep studies in recent years and resulted in an increasing publication growth rate. So, it seems essential that a comprehensive analytical study be done in this field with a bibliometrics approach aiming to identify research trends and patterns in the field of faculty members’ appraisal systems. The Web of Science was utilized for data collection through a search process on August 2, 2022, in which terms related to promotion, evaluation, and faculty members were searched in the topic section of all databases. By identifying research evolution (word and thematic evolution), core journals (Scientometrics), active countries (USA, United Kingdom, and China), types of research collaboration, and leading institutions in this field, policymakers can gain insights into the current state of research in this area and make informed decisions about future directions for faculty evaluations. Policymakers can use the study's findings to identify which institutions are leading the way in faculty appraisal research and collaborate with them to share best practices. Thematic mapping also allows for the identification of emerging research areas and helps researchers develop effective research strategies. Overall, this study's findings can help universities and policymakers develop more evidence-based and effective faculty member evaluation policies that promote academic excellence and contribute to the overall success of higher education institutions.

Keywords

Appraisal System

Promotion

Tenure

Faculty Members

Scientific Productions

20.1001.1.20088302.2024.22.3.4.5

Subjects

Scientometrics

Arroyo Esteban, S., Urquía-Grande, E., Martínez de Silva, A., & Pérez-Estébanez, R. (2022). Big data, accounting and international development: Trends and challenges. Cuadernos de Gestión, 22(1), 193-213. https://doi.org/10.5295/cdg.211513sa

Aslam, H. D. (2011). Performance evaluation of teachers in universities: Contemporary issues and challenges. Journal of educational and social research, 1(2), 11-31.‏

Azimi Nezhad, M., Tatari, F. & Borji, A. (2019). A comprehensive approach to faculty members’ promotion policies. Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research, 9(3), 115-122. Retrieved from https://japer.in/storage/models/article/WJuJiIrjlEbfPYayKY7HBAKCkZNQongObTw4Mh6KwiBXOOGCoIWRCib6DViG/a-comprehensive-approach-to-faculty-members-promotion-policies.pdf

Cabrera, D., Roy, D. & Chisolm, M. S. (2018). Social media scholarship and alternative metrics for academic promotion and tenure. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 15(1), 135-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.09.012

Chou, C. P. (2014). The SSCI syndrome in higher education: A local or global phenomenon. SensePublishers Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-407-9

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002

Coggburn, J. D. & Neely, S. R. (2015). Publish or perish? Examining academic tenure standards in public affairs and administration programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2015.12001828

Díaz-Faes, A. A., Bordons, M. & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2016). Integrating metrics to measure research performance in social sciences and humanities: The case of the Spanish CSIC. Research Evaluation, 25 (4), 451-460. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw018

Elena, A. & Ioana, P. (2015). Evaluation criteria for performance appraisal of faculty members. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 203, 386-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.313

Gazerani, A., Dehnoalian, A., Gharahzadeh, A. & Tatari, F. (2020). A critical study about the faculty members' evaluation models. Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education and Research, 10(2-2020), 71-76.

Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 473-496). Springer, Dordrecht.

Huang, M. H. & Chang, Y. W. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819–1828. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20885

Janik, A., Ryszko, A. & Szafraniec, M. (2021). Exploring the social innovation research field based on a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(4), 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7040226

Kiely, K., Brennan, N. & Hayes. A. (2019). Measuring research in the university via senior academic promotions and faculty research metrics, Procedia Computer Science, 146, 73-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.092

Klein, J. T. & Falk-Krzesinski, H. J. (2017). Interdisciplinary and collaborative work: Framing promotion and tenure practices and policies. Research Policy, 46(6), 1055-1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.001

Konkiel, S., Sugimoto, C. & Williams, S. (2016). The Use of Altmetrics in Promotion and TenureEDUCAUSE Review, 51(2), 54-55. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/3/the-use-of-altmetrics-in-promotion-and-tenure

Lavorgna, A., Ugwudike, P. & Vianello, F. (2023). Evaluating research and scholarly impact in criminology and criminal justice in the United Kingdom and Italy: A comparative perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 39(3), 354-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231170966

Liang, W., Gu, J. & Nyland, C. (2022). China’s new research evaluation policy: Evidence from economics faculty of elite Chinese universities. Research Policy, 51(1), 104407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104407

Lin, J. Y. (2023). The endogenous role of location evaluation for academic performance in university, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 34(7-8), 7-8, 930-958. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2022.2139673

López-Herrera, A. G., Cobo, M. J., Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F. (2016). A bibliometric study about the research based on hybridating the fuzzy logic field and the other computational intelligent techniques: A visual approach. International Journal of Hybrid Intelligent Systems, 7(1), 17-32. https://doi.org/10.3233/his-2010-0102

López‐Fernández, M. C., Serrano‐Bedia, A. M. & Pérez‐Pérez, M. (2016). Entrepreneurship and family firm research: A bibliometric analysis of an emergingfield. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 622–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12161

Mattsson, P., Sundberg, C.J. & Laget, P. (2011). Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics, 87(1), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0310-9

Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Information Science and Knowledge Management. Vol. 9. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany.

Mohammadi, E. & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627–1638. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23071

Muñoz-Leiva, F., Viedma-del-Jesús, M. I., Sánchez-Fernández, J. & López-Herrera, A. G. (2012). An application of co-word analysis and bibliometric maps for detecting the most highlighting themes in the consumer behaviour research from a longitudinal perspective. Quality and Quantity, 46(4), 1077-1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9565-3

Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2

Nocco SE, Larson AR. (2021). Promotion of women physicians in academic medicine. Journal of women's health (Larchmt), 30(6), 864-871. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2019.7992

Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E. & Daniel, H. D. (2014). Setting the stage for the assessment of research quality in the humanities. Consolidating the results of four empirical studies. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(6), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0576-4

Priem, J. & Hemminger, B. H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 15(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i7.2874

Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm, P., & Primeri, E. (2018). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 298-308. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx025

Rice, D. B., Raffoul, H., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Moher, D. (2020). Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 369, m2081. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2081

Richter, K. P., Clark, L., Wick, J. A., Cruvinel, E., Durham, D., Shaw, P., Shih, G. H., Befort, C. A. & Simari, R. D. (2020). Women Physicians and Promotion in Academic Medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 383(22), 2148–2157. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1916935

Schloegl, C. & Gorraiz, J. (2011). Global usage versus global citation metrics: The case of pharmacology journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21420

Sibbald, T. & Handford, V. (2020). A substantive model of Canadian tenure-track experiences. Uluslararası Beşeri Bilimler ve Eğitim Dergisi, 6(14), 455-469. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/871015

Sivertsen, D. M. G. & Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91(2), 567-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0615-3

Toledo, E. G. (2018). Research assessment in Humanities and Social Sciences in review. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 41(3), e208. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2018.3.1552

Tymvios, N. & Hildreth, J. (2015, June). Perceptions of requirements for and impediments to tenure for construction faculty. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 26-1223).

Xie, H., Zhang, Y., Wu, Z. & Lv, T. (2020). A Bibliometric Analysis on Land Degradation: Current Status, Development, and Future Directions. Land, 9(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9010028

Xu, X., Oancea, A. & Rose, H. (2021). The impacts of incentives for international publications on research cultures in Chinese humanities and social sciences. Minerva, 59, 469–492 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09441-w

Zakaras, J. M., Sarkar, U., Bibbins-Domingo, K., & Mangurian, C.V. (2021). Not just surviving, but thriving: overcoming barriers to career advancement for women junior faculty clinician-researchers. Acad Psychiatry, 45(2),180-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-020-01361-3