Biology needs a modern assessment system for professional productivity

BioScience

Volumn 61, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 619-625

  McDade, Lucinda A ^a   Maddison, David R ^b   Guralnick, Robert ^c   Piwowar, Heather A ^d   Jameson, Mary Liz ^e   Helgen, Kristofer M ^f   Herendeen, Patrick S ^g   Hill, Andrew ^h   Vis, Morgan L ⁱ  

^a CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^d NATIONAL EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS CENTER   (United States)

^e WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f DEPARTMENT OF PALEOBIOLOGY   (United States)

^g CHICAGO BOTANIC GARDEN   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

ⁱ OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

academic assessment; curation of natural history collections; digital objects; scientific productivity; systematic biology

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051778482     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.8.8     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ball P. 2005. Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature 436:900.
2. Bourne PE, Fink JL. 2008. I am not a scientist, I am a number. PLoS Computational Biology 412:e1000247.
3. Brummitt RK, Powell CE. 1992. Authors of Plant Names. Royal Botanical Gardens Kew. (27 May 2011; www.ipni.org/index.html)
4. Cals J W L, Kotz D. 2008. Researcher identification: The right needle in the haystack. The Lancet 371:2152-2153. (Pubitemid 351885025)
5. Chavan VS, Ingwersen P. 2009. Towards a data publishing framework for primary biodiversity data: Challenges and potentials for the biodiversity informatics community. BMC Bioinformatics 10 (suppl. 14): S2.
6. Costello MJ. 2009. Motivating online publication of data. BioScience 59:418-427.
7. Dove CJ. 1999. Feather identification and a new electronic system for reporting US Air Force bird strikes. Digital Commons@University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (27 May 2011; http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/birdstrike1999/13)
8. Funk VA, Zermoglio MF, Nasir N. 1999. Testing the use of specimen collection data and GIS in biodiversity exploration and conservation decision making in Guyana. Biodiversity and Conservation 8:727-751. (Pubitemid 29337583)
9. Godlee F. 2002. Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit. Journal of the American Medical Association 287:2762-2765. (Pubitemid 34591957)
10. Hirsch JE. 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:16569-16572. (Pubitemid 41688817)
11. Krell F-T. 2000. Impact factors aren't relevant to taxonomy. Nature 405:507-508. (Pubitemid 30367698)
12. Krell F-T. 2009. The poverty of citation databases: Data mining is crucial for fair metrical evaluation of research performance. BioScience 59:6-7.
13. Kress WJ, et al. 1998. Amazonian biodiversity: Assessing conservation priorities with taxonomic data. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:1577-1587. (Pubitemid 29139354)
14. Moritz C, Patton JL, Conroy CJ, Parra JL, White GC, Beissinger SR. 2008. Impact of a century of climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science 322:261-264.
15. Nature Biotechnology. 2009. Credit where credit is overdue. Nature Biotechnology 27:579.
16. Nature Genetics. 2007. Compete, collaborate, compel. Nature Genetics 39:931.
17. -. 2008. Human variome microattribution reviews. Nature Genetics 40:1.
18. -. 2009. Data producers deserve citation credit. Nature Genetics 41:1045.
19. Neff BD, Olden JD. 2010. Not so fast: Inflation in impact factors contributes to apparent improvements in journal quality. BioScience 60:455-459.
20. Neylon C, Wu S. 2009. Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biology 7:e1000242.
21. Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T. 1999. The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. Stanford Digital Library Technologies Project, 1998. (http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/)
22. Penev L, Erwin T, Miller J, Chavan V, Moritz T, Griswold C. 2009. Publication and dissemination of data sets in taxonomy: ZooKeys working example. ZooKeys 11:1-8.
23. Pennisi E. 2008. Proposal to "Wikify" GenBank meets stiff resistance. Science 319:1598-1599. (Pubitemid 351432473)
24. Peterson AT, Vieglais DA. 2001. Predicting species invasions using ecological niche modeling: New approaches from bioinformatics attack a pressing problem. BioScience 51:363-371. (Pubitemid 32550420)
25. Priem J, Hemminger B. 2010. Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday 15. (27 May 2011; http://firstmonday.org/ htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874/2570)
26. Seglen PO. 1997. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 314:498-502. (Pubitemid 27081238)
27. Shotton D, Portwin K, Klyne G, Miles A. 2009. Adventures in semantic publishing: exemplar semantic enhancements of a research article. PLoS Computational Biology 5:e1000361.
28. Sieber JE, Trumbo BE. 1995. (Not) giving credit where credit is due: Citation of data sets. Science and Engineering Ethics. 1:11-20.
29. Smith VS, Rycroft SD, Harman KT, Scott B, Roberts D. 2009. Scratchpads: A data-publishing framework to build, share and manage information on the diversity of life. BMC Bioinformatics 10 (suppl. 14): S6.
30. Soejarto DD. 1996. Biodiversity prospecting and benefit-sharing: Perspectives from the field. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 51:1-15. (Pubitemid 26093346)
31. Thorisson GA. 2009. Accreditation and attribution in data sharing. Nature Biotechnology 27:984-985.
32. Valdecasas AG, Castroviejo S, Marcus LF. 2000. Reliance on the citation index undermines the study of biodiversity. Nature 403:698. (Pubitemid 30111808)
33. Vision TJ. 2010. Open data and the social contract of scientific publishing. BioScience 60:330.
34. Yates TL, et al. 2002. The ecology and evolutionary history of an emergent disease: Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. BioScience 52:989-998. (Pubitemid 35307241)
35. Young JR. 2002. Ever so slowly, colleges start to count work with technology in tenure decisions. Chronicle of Higher Education 48:25.