Et nytt forslag til beregning

19. november 2009 10:59:45

Et nytt forslag til beregning

After a somewhat sarcastic "personlig konsekvens utredning" yesterday regarding the DBH point threshold, I feel the need to be a little more precise with my own position. I essentially support Reinhard Siegmund-Schultze's position of conditional support for a system that requires a fairly strong research production for faculty members to be entitled to 50% research time. That makes sense to me. And, I understand the economics of the issue for UiA. I would even agree with Rector Løvdal at productivity equivalent to two level one per-reviewed articles per year is a reasonable expectation for a faculty member given 800 hours a year to engage in the research process.

BUT, what Rector Løvdal does not take into account is the fundamental conflict the proposed mathematics imposes. Two published articles (level 1) almost never equal 2 points for anyone publishing in the sciences. At UiA, we have promoted for years a policy of increased internal collaboration and external cooperation to enhance our research production. That is happening. We are developing masters and PhD programs. At the heart of these programs is the cooperation between student and advisor, and coauthorship of research articles. Therefore it is almost INHERENT in the system that resulting research articles have 2 or more coauthors and the pie is shared based on the Vancouver rules for co-authorship and who should be included on a paper. It is unthinkable that a masters student who actively carried out a research project resulting in publication Would not be a co-author, ideally a first author, even though many of them will never be involved in the DBH point allocation game.

So, if this system is going to function as an incentive to increased overall production and publication in the best journals, the system has to be modified so that cooperation is not punished at the individual level. I therefore throw out a proposal after a discussion with colleague and active scientist Rune Høigaard:


1. Keep 2 DBH points as the threshold for 50% research time, but revise the system for internal use as follows:

2. Award 1 point as previously proposed for a solo authored level 1 publication

3. Award 1.0 point for a level one publication to BOTH authors of a 2 author publication

4. Award 0.5 points for a level one publication to all additional authors >2), no matter how many.

5. Award 3 points as before for a solo authored level 2 publication

6. Award 2 points to the first author and last author of a level two publication

7. Award 1 point to each additional co-author of a level 2 publication with >2 contributers

It is still a "tellekant system" but the proposed alterations reward cooperation more fairly, and take into account the normal
weighting of effort and contribution that is already made by cooperating scientists when published in journals. The reality of the our proposed changes would be that:

1. You still need to be a driving force on two level 1 publications each year to merit 50% research time
2. If you get 1 level two article published every year as main author or senior author (often the advisor for a Phd or masters student who is first author), then you have fullfilled the requirements for 50% FoU time. That makes sense, Getting published in Science or Nature would be quite a big deal whether you were alone or had 10 names behind yours!
3. Cooperation with other authors that increases the chances of publication does not punish those who initiate the cooperation
4. The normal heirarchy of contribution to articles is factored in (Vancouver rules apply here)
5. The typical student advisor relationship is accounted for by the system and not punished