Re:Replace Peer Review with “Peer Replication” (2021)
by harimau777 on Sunday August 06, 2023 @04:17PM
(#37026166)
Is tenure really as mechanical as "publish this many papers and you get it"? My impression was that it took into account things like impact factor and was much more subjective. If that were the case, then wouldn't you run into problems with whoever decides tenure paying lip service to counting replication or failed pre-registered papers but in practice being biased in favor of original research?
Re:Replace Peer Review with “Peer Replication” (2021)
by ebiester on Monday August 07, 2023 @08:15AM
(#37033376)
It depends on where you are. The more prestigious the university, the more that impact factors start to matter. There is also the matter of teaching and service, but I'm not talking about the entire tenure system.
The non-easy part of this is once we start making changes to the criteria for tenure, this opens up people trying to stuff all the solutions for all of the problems that everyone knows already. (See Above.) Would some one try to stuff code-available for CS conference papers, for example? What does it mean for a poster session? At what point are papers released for pre-print? What does it mean for the tenure clock or the Ph.D clock? Does it mean that pre-tenure can't depend on studies that take time to replicate? What do we do with longitudinal studies?
I think you're looking at a 50 year transition where you would have to start simple and iterate.