Jump to content

Wikipedia:Draft rewrite of Notability (academics)/Side-by-side

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is a side-by-side presentation of the changes proposed in the draft rewrite of the notability criteria for academics at Wikipedia:Draft rewrite of Notability (academics). The initial version is based on my understanding of the proposals. If this understanding is incorrect or proposals change/have changed, please correct/update this. Red strikethrough and green italics are used to highlight small changes only.

Lead

[edit]

[Unchanged, I think, other than the addition below]

Proposed addition: This guideline specifically does not include those engaged in pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories, who would be notable only if they meet criteria under the general notability or WP:BIO guidelines

Criteria

[edit]
Existing Proposed Comment
1 The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 1 The person's research has had an impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Removal of the word "significant" would bring the guideline more into line with existing standards for other subject-area notability guidelines and GNG and would eliminate some of the subjective nature of the guideline which causes so much tension. As written, the guideline places Wikipedia editors, “who [may have] virtually no back-ground” in a specific area of expertise, in the position of weighing their own ideas of what is "significant" against expert opinion from those who do have specific knowledge in a field.[1]
2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. 2 The person has received an academic award or honor at a national or international level. If the applicant has received an academic “award or honor at a national or international level”, they have already surpassed the “average academic”. Acceptance of national and international awards and honors as indications of notability are standard across Wikipedia. If sourcing indicates that an academic was chosen for a national or international academic honor, under what criterion of policy would an editor reject that as meeting notability?
3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2] 3 The person is or has been an elected member of a society or association (e.g., a National academy or Royal Society for any country) or a fellow of an internationally recognized foundation or society known for scholarship (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE, Humboldt Fellows). Eliminating the subjective terms in the verbiage make the guideline more objective and in line with other Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia editors do not determine notability, rather sources do. If further clarification is needed for the types of awards that meet academic honors, those should be spelled out or qualified by things which such awards are not, i.e. does not include awards given for X.
4 The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. 4 The person's academic work has made an impact in the area of higher education, affecting multiple academic institutions. Removal of peacock terms to remove uncertainty and vagueness, should be completed. Guidelines for textbooks require use by two educational facilities.
5 The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. 5 [no change] Should be retained as it is widely accepted that named chairs recognize academic excellence and are valued by scholars as well as their universities.[3][4][5]
6 The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. 6 [no change] [none?]
- [new criterion] 7 The person is a teaching academic whose teaching excellence has been noted by a national award; who has designed a noted teaching innovation; or who has produced a notable textbook. As women and minorities make up more of the teaching staff and are more likely to be asked to fulfill the service missions of universities,[1][[2]], [3] are less likely to receive research funding in most fields[4], [5], [6], [7] and are less likely to be on a tenure track[8],[9] giving credit for teaching excellence will recognize academics who are less involved in research but within academia's three focus areas.
- [new criterion] 8 The person is an academic working in a field known primarily for their practice, such as architecture, engineering, law, or clinical work (such as physicians or other medical specialties); an administrator, such as dean, head of a department, provost, etc.; or any other academic and meets the standards for notability of ANYBIO or the General Notability Guideline. See Notes at the main proposal page. I am entirely unclear whether these are intended as alternatives to or notes associated with this proposal or something else.
7 The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. 9 The person has had an impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Remove subjective text and eliminate criterion not included in the guideline:
8 The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. 10 The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, academic journal in their subject area. In line with other Wikipedia guidelines, the length of establishment or size of the enterprise, may or may not denote notability. To establish the reputation under the criterion it is more precise to state that the journal is known for excellence in a particular field, which should be documentable with reliable sources. Likewise as with the discussion of industry, heads of notable journals are typically within the bounds of other Wikipedia guidelines of notability.
9 The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. 11 [renumbered but no other change] [none]

General notes

[edit]

[no changes proposed?]

Specific criteria notes

[edit]

Criterion 1 notes

[edit]
Existing Proposed Comment associated with proposal Comment by Thryduulf
Bullet 0 See also notes to Criterion 2, some of which apply to Criterion 1 as well. ? ? Entirely unclear what if anything is proposed regarding this
Bullet 1 The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. - [deleted] Bullet point one should be eliminated as it is discussed thoroughly in bullet point 6. These might be intended as alternatives or might be discussing different things
1-1 Persons appearing on major indices of highly cited academics are notable. While highly cited in and of itself, if noted in one of the major indices, such as Clarivate Analytics or Thomson Reuters would denote notability, the converse is not automatically true, in that not appearing on the lists could be due to a variety of factors, such as systemic bias, geographical location, whether the academic published in the pre-internet age, etc.[6]
Bullet 2A To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books. 1-2 To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books as may be included in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Science Citation Index,[7] Social Sciences Citation Index,[8] or the Web of Science Core Collection. As any one database does not include all scholarly journals, monographs, or book chapters, it is acknowledged that failure to appear on such a list does not automatically mean that the journal fails peer-review.”[9]
Bullet 2B In some disciplines there are review publications that review virtually all refereed publications in that discipline. For example, in mathematics, Mathematical Reviews, also known as MathSciNet, and Zentralblatt MATH fall into that category. The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1. However, the content of the review and any evaluative comments made there may be used for that purpose. 1-4 [reordered after bullet 2C/1-3 but no other change] It follows standard accepted practice in other Wikipedia guidelines that mere mention is insufficient and that content must be evaluated.
Bullet 2C Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries). The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure. 1-3 Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries). An average of one publication per year in a scholarly academic journal over the career trajectory satisfies publishing requirements. As there is no uniform interpretation of what that a substantial number of publications might be, nor any uniform requirement across universities, within departments of a university, or across geographical boundaries,[10][11] referring to a uniform institutional standard implies something that does not exist. One study which evaluated the entire Scopus database, containing 15,153,100 publishing scientists, found that less than 1% of all authors published more than one article per year over the 16-year period between 1996 and 2011.[12] An average of one article per year appears to be a fairly standard performance requirement for universities.[11][13][14]


As for citation rates, over an eleven-year period from 2000-2010 the Essential Science Indicators database of Thomson Reuters showed an overall citation rate of 19.92 for articles with a ten-year track record of publication declining to 0.41 in the most recent year studied, but citation rates vary widely between fields. Those with the longest track record, from the first year of publication (2000), showed that the highest citation rates occurred in molecular biology and genetics (49.10) , immunology (38.21) and neuroscience (36.06). The lowest average citation rates occurred in Social Sciences (9.25), computer sciences (7.17) and mathematics (6.76). The rankings of high to low citations in various fields remained consistent over the period.[15] Clearly, across varying fields the standards vary widely.

Note this is proposed to be reordered to before bullet 2B/1-4
Bullet 3 Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. 1-5 Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a new concept, technique or idea; made a notable discovery; or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references in multiple reliable sources of academic publications by researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.
Bullet 4 The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses. 1-6 [no change other than to number]
Bullet 5 There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others. 1-7 There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see Criterion 2); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others. Clarification change only
Bullet 6 For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series; awards by notable academic and scholarly societies; honorary degrees; and others. Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose. - [deleted] Bullet point 6 should be stricken unless documentary evidence can be provided that proves the criterion are widely accepted as non-routine job performance measures
Bullet 7 For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects. - [deleted] Bullet point 7 should be stricken. Wikipedia editors do not determine whether someone is an expert in a field, sources do. Regardless of whether the field is broad or narrow, editors must follow what is stated in reliable sourcing.
Bullet 8 Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. 1-8 Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.

Wikipedia prohibits using indices such as the h-index, m-index, etc. to establish notability.

Citations alone are inadequate to judge impact, as performance measures typically include a balanced review of quantity versus quality. Research has shown that less than 50% of the articles published in the top 4500 scientific journals are cited even once in the first five years after publication, with almost a quarter of those citations that do occur being self-citation. Research indicates that some of the most acclaimed research publications, even those which received the Nobel Prize, are not among the most highly cited works of all time.[16] Further, publication biases controlled by hierarchical funding mechanisms or the small number of academic publishers, may impact the ability of women and minorities in bringing their works to print.


It should also be stressed that name changes, which typically affect women, may reduce the number of citations credited to authors as do the period in which they published. Pre-internet scholars are far less likely to have their works compiled in such statistical compilations or bibliometric tools.


Bibliometric indices are problematic for various reasons cited above and require editors to make subjective assessments of whether or not they are applicable for a given field. According to the French Academy of Sciences such tools are useful if used by experts and should be avoided by nonspecialists.[17] Instead assessment should be based upon reliable secondary sources which indicate clearly whether or not the academic has had an impact upon their field of study.

Bullet 9 Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1. 1-9 Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1 unless reliable secondary sourcing confirms that the naming was based on the impact of an academic on their field.
Bullet 10 Having a small collaboration distance from a famous or notable academic (e.g., having a small Erdős number) is not, in and of itself, indicative of satisfying Criterion 1. 1-10 [no change other than to number] Bullet point 10 should be renumbered as 1-10 and retained, as it is in line with other Wikipedia guidelines that notability is not inherited.

Criterion 2 notes

[edit]
Existing Proposed Comment associated with proposal Comment by Thryduulf
Bullet 1 For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section). 2-1 [No change other than to number] Unclear to me what "(see item 4 above in this section)" is referring to.
Bullet 2 For documenting that a person has won a specific award (but not for a judgement of whether or not that award is prestigious), publications of the awarding institution are considered a reliable source. 2-2 The "prestigious" requirement in the criterion is proposed to be removed - should it be here also?
Bullet 3 Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1. 2-3
Bullet 4 Biographical listings in and awards from vanity press publishers, such as the American Biographical Institute, or from publications incorporating a substantial vanity press element in their business model, such as Marquis Who's Who, do not qualify for satisfying Criterion 2 or for partially satisfying Criterion 1. ? ? Not discussed in the proposal

Criterion 3 notes

[edit]
Existing Proposed Comment associated with proposal Comment by Thryduulf
Bullet 1 For the purposes of Criterion 3, elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient (most newly formed societies fall into that category). 3-1 For the purposes of Criterion 3, elected memberships, in minor and societies for which notability has not been established, are insufficient (most newly formed societies fall into that category).
Bullet 2 For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source. ? ? Not discussed in the proposal
- [new] 3-2 An academic who is a member of any national academy, which has adopted "practices that uphold the integrity of research to ensure advances in knowledge", meets the criterion.[18]
- [new] 3-3 An academic who is a Fellow of a notable foundation or society, which was created for purposes other than scholarship, such to increase diversity, does not automatically meet the criteria of this guideline.
  • Added to align with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
  • It is certainly possible that a fellowship might be notable for granting funds to improve targeted underrepresented groups and yet their fellows have not yet proven that they meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. For example, while Laureates and Fellows of the L'Oréal-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science recognize established scientists, the Rising Talent Award is awarded to young talent, who may or may not have yet met sufficient criteria.[19]


Criterion 4 notes

[edit]
Existing Proposed Comment associated with proposal Comment by Thryduulf
Bullet 1 Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education. - [deleted] Bullet point 1 should be eliminated unless it can be proven that authorship of several books that are widely used as textbooks is generally accepted as a benchmark for high academic standards, separately from authoring one such book, or designing a course curricula, that has been in print for decades and is still in use. It should be replaced with "In lieu of confirming that the textbook is in use in multiple educational facilities, translation(s) into other languages or multiple editions satisfy verification of impact". My interpretation is that these are alternative proposals, based on the comment with the second appearing to be a proposed rebuttal of the first.
4-1 [no change other than number?] Common sense dictates that as publishers are in the business to make money, they are not likely to spend publishing revenues to print multiple editions or translations of a work which they do not think will sell.[20]
4-1 Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored one or more books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course), especially if:
  • They are used at multiple institutions of higher education.
  • Multiple editions of the book(s) have been published over several years
  • They have been used for an extended period of time (typically 10 years or more)
 This is my alternative proposal that is intended to proved a mid-way between the two alternatives above, based on the comments associated with them.

Criterion 5 notes

[edit]
Existing Proposed Comment associated with proposal Comment by Thryduulf
Bullet 1 For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source. ? ? Discussion labelled point 1 doesn't seem to relate to this bullet.
5-1 [no change other than number] My proposal as this seems to be entirely common sense.
Bullet 2 Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. - [deleted] Bullet point one should be stricken. It is highly biased and does not reflect the reality for minorities in the academic setting, which shows that on average 80-90% of full professorships are held by men, that women rarely hold even 20% of full professorships and only tiny fractions are held by minorities.[21]

If a chair is endowed, it is endowed and based on the above cited documentation has value to the scholar, their peers and the university. Editors do not determine notability. The fact that the university selected the occupant of the chair, if confirmed in reliable sources, is sufficient to establish that the value of the appointment was recognized.

Referred to as Bullet 1 in the proposal but doesn't seem to relate to that.
Bullet 3 Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability. - [deleted] Bullet point [three] should also be stricken as prejudicial, there is no documentation given to show that major institutions have a better result at naming chairs than other institutions. In fact, there is ample evidence to show that reputations and scholarship by institutions in the Global South have only recently begun being studied.[22] Further, simply because a university is considered “prestigious” has not been found to correlate with whether or not they are serving the needs of their students, academics, or communities.[23] Referred to as Bullet 2 in the proposal but doesn't seem to relate to that.
[General?] ? see Wikipedia:Draft rewrite of Notability (academics)#Criterion 5 Extensive comments by user:Otr500 don't seem to have been addressed, and it's not clear to me what specific changes they are proposing?

Criterion 6 notes

[edit]
Existing Proposed Comment associated with proposal Comment by Thryduulf
Bullet 1 For documenting that a person has held such a post (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution or society is a major one), publications of the institution where the post is held are considered a reliable source. 6-1 [no change other than to numbering] Bullet point[s 1-3] should be retained and renumbered as 6-1 [to 6-3]. [They are] in-line with other Wikipedia policies which recognize CEOs, CFOs and business leaders as notable.


The fact that the university acknowledged the occupant of the chair, if confirmed in reliable sources, is sufficient to establish that the value of the appointment was recognized.

The proposal treats the notes for criterion 6 as a single bullet with multiple sentences. rather than separate bullets. The numbering here therefore differs from the proposal.
Bullet 2 Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. 6-2 The retention of terms like "significant" and "highly regarded" seems at odds with the general desire to remove peacock terms?
Bullet 3 Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). 6-3 See also new criterion 7.
Bullet 4 Heads of institutes and centers devoted to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 6; they may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines. - [deleted] The last [bullet] should be stricken as pseudo-science has already been excluded from the guideline in its entirety. This refers to the proposed addition to the lead.

Criterion 7 notes (new criterion)

[edit]
Existing Proposed Comment associated with proposal Comment by Thryduulf
[N/A] 7-1 National awards (like the Australian Awards for University Teaching,[20] the National Excellence in Teaching and Learning Awards of South Africa[21] etc.) or teaching recognition from a national-level or international private foundation or society (such as the Deborah and Franklin Haimo Awards for Distinguished College or University Teaching of Mathematics, the 3M Teaching Fellowship, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Awards Program for Excellence in College and University Teaching in the Food and Agricultural Sciences, etc.),[23] which is known for selective criteria founded in promoting high teaching standards, satisfy the requirement. I have made a minor change to the grammar and split proposed 7-1 into 7-1 and 7-2, adjusting the numbers of the others accordingly
7-2 Recognition by provincial/state or regional organizations, or awards from the academic's own university, may only be used to satisfy this requirement if both of the following hold true: 1) sourcing confirms that they were conferred based upon scholarly activities and were not inclusive of polls of peers or students and 2) the academic has received multiple awards mentioned in reliable sources.
7-3 Teaching awards which incorporate student evaluations are not acceptable to use in this criterion based on a review of their unreliability in assessing learning.[24][25][26]
7-4 Innovation can include any aspect of education that has made a marked impact on improving learning including creation of curricula, development of technology, practical uses, policy development, etc.[27] Adequate coverage in reliable sources must demonstrate that the person is widely credited with the development of the innovation or process.
7-5 Textbooks must meet standards established for textbook notability in criterion #4 of Book Criteria

Criterion 8 notes (new criterion)

[edit]

See Notes at the main proposal page. I am entirely unclear whether these are intended as alternatives to or notes associated with this proposal or something else.

Criterion 9 notes (old criterion 7)

[edit]
Existing Proposed Comment associated with proposal Comment by Thryduulf
Bullet 1 Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. 9-1 [no change otherthan numbering] [This] falls in line with other Wikipedia standards of significant coverage.
Bullet 2 Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. Books on pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories are generally not covered by this criterion; their authors may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines. 9-2 Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. [This] should be retained [...], striking out the phrases on pseudo-science which has already been excluded from the guideline in its entirety.
Bullet 3 Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7. 9-3 Commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7. Bullet point three needs clarification before it is retained. Recent scholarship indicates that patents are becoming an important source of research and development income to universities, are increasingly used by scholars who have taken over the place of industrial research laboratories, and have value as tenure measures.[28][29][30][31][32] The proposal is my interpretation of the comment.

Criterion 10 (old criterion 8)

[edit]
Existing Proposed Comment associated with proposal Comment by Thryduulf
Bullet 1 For documenting that a person has held such a position (but not for a judgement of whether or not the journal is a major well-established one), publications of the journal or its publishers are considered a reliable source. 10-1 For documenting that a person has held such a position (but not for a judgement of whether or not the journal is a major one), publications of the journal or its publishers are considered a reliable source. Unclear if the original proposal comment included this (it implies there is only one bullet, not 2).

This is my proposal to retain but adjust to match the changes to the criterion.

Bullet 2 Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 8. However, their head editor may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines. - [Deleted] Bullet point [two] should be stricken. It is repetitive and the entire subject of pseudo-science has been excluded from the guideline. Unclear if this relates to just this bullet or to bohth

Criterion 11 (old criterion 9)

[edit]
Existing Proposed Comment associated with proposal Comment by Thryduulf
[N/A] [N/A] No specific notes exist or are currently proposed


Citation metrics

[edit]

[No changes proposed]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Vitulli, Marie A. (20 October 2017). "Writing Women in Mathematics into Wikipedia". arXiv:1710.11103v3 [math.HO].
  2. ^ See "IEEE Fellows Elected as of 1 January 1975". 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2017.
  3. ^ "About - Endowed Professorships and Chairs". The University of Texas at Dallas. Retrieved 2018-03-04.
  4. ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (2011-12-31). The Hedgehog, The Fox And The Magister's Pox: Mending and Minding the Misconceived Gap Between Science and the Humanities. Random House. ISBN 9781448114238.
  5. ^ Sachar, Abram Leon (1995). Brandeis University: A Host at Last. UPNE. ISBN 9780874515855.
  6. ^ "Researcher Trends - HCR". clarivate.com. Retrieved 2018-03-03.
  7. ^ Garfield, Eugene (2007). "The evolution of the Science Citation Index" (PDF). International Microbiology. 10 (10). Barcelona, Spain: Springer Science+Business Media for the Spanish Society for Microbiology: 65–69. doi:10.2436/20.1501.01.10. ISSN 1139-6709. PMID 17407063. Retrieved 5 March 2018.
  8. ^ Klein, Daniel B.; Chiang, Eric (April 2004). "The Social Science Citation Index: A Black Box--With an Ideological Bias?" (PDF). Econ Journal Watch. 1 (1): 134–165.
  9. ^ Cadez, Simon; Dimovski, Vlado; Groff, Maja Zaman (December 2015). "Research, teaching and performance evaluation in academia: the salience of quality". Studies in Higher Education. 42 (8): 1455–1473. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1104659. S2CID 146707740.
  10. ^ Lee, Barbara A. (1988-12-01). "Qualifications for tenure: The legal definitions". Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 1 (4): 263–272. doi:10.1007/bf01556935. ISSN 0892-7545. S2CID 154355567.
  11. ^ a b Coggburgn, Jerrell D.; Neely, Sephen R. (2007). "Publish or Perish? Examining Academic Tenure Standards in Public Affairs and Administration Programs" (PDF). Journal of Public Affairs Education. 21 (2): 199–214. doi:10.1080/15236803.2015.12001828. S2CID 158790935.
  12. ^ Ioannidis, John P. A.; Boyack, Kevin W.; Klavans, Richard (2014-07-09). "Estimates of the Continuously Publishing Core in the Scientific Workforce". PLOS ONE. 9 (7): e101698. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9j1698I. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101698. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 4090124. PMID 25007173.
  13. ^ Rørstad, Kristoffer; Aksnes, Dag W. (2015). "Publication rate expressed by age, gender and academic position – A large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff". Journal of Informetrics. 9 (2): 317–333. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.02.003.
  14. ^ Kigotho, Wachira (16 June 2017). "New guidelines set high publishing bar for academics - University World News". University World News. Retrieved 2018-03-03.
  15. ^ "Citation averages, 2000-2010, by fields and years". Times Higher Education (THE). 2011-03-31. Retrieved 2018-03-03.
  16. ^ Van Noorden, Richard; Maher, Brendan; Nuzzo, Regina (2014-10-30). "The top 100 papers". Nature. 514 (7524): 550–553. Bibcode:2014Natur.514..550V. doi:10.1038/514550a. PMID 25355343. S2CID 4466906.
  17. ^ Sahel, José-Alain (2011-05-25). "Quality Versus Quantity: Assessing Individual Research Performance". Science Translational Medicine. 3 (84): 84cm13. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3002249. ISSN 1946-6234. PMC 3338409. PMID 21613620.
  18. ^ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy And Global, Affairs; Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy; Committee on Responsible Science (2017). Fostering Integrity in Research. National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/21896. ISBN 9780309391252. PMID 29341557. {{cite book}}: |last2= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. ^ "The World need Science, Science needs women". For Women in Science. Clichy Cedex, France: L'Oréal Foundation. 2015. Archived from the original on 11 March 2018. Retrieved 14 March 2018.
  20. ^ a b Flood, Alison (5 March 2018). "Philip Pullman calls for authors to get fairer share of publisher profits". The Guardian. London, England. Archived from the original on 5 March 2018. Retrieved 14 March 2018.
  21. ^ a b "Race and Ethnicity of Full-Time Professors at 4-Year Institutions, by Academic Rank, Fall 2013". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 62 (43): 14. 19 August 2016. ISSN 0009-5982. Retrieved 5 March 2018 – via EBSCO Academic Search Complete.
  22. ^ Minsky, Carly (2016-05-26). "Latin America's top universities by reputation". Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved 2018-03-04.
  23. ^ a b Selingo, Jeffrey J. (2016-02-04). "The end of college rankings as we know them". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-03-04.
  24. ^ Kornell, Nate (31 May 2013). "Do the Best Professors Get the Worst Ratings?". Psychology Today. New York City, New York: Sussex Publishers. ISSN 0033-3107. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  25. ^ Miller, Claire Cain (6 February 2015). "Is the Professor Bossy or Brilliant? Much Depends on Gender". The New York Times. New York, New York. Archived from the original on 16 December 2017. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  26. ^ Stark, Philip B.; Freishtat, Richard (29 September 2014). "An Evaluation of Course Evaluations" (PDF). ScienceOpen Research. Berlin, Germany: ScienceOpen. doi:10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AOFRQA.v1. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  27. ^ Serdyukov, Peter (2017). "Innovation in education: what works, what doesn't, and what to do about it?". Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning. 10 (1). Bingley, West Yorkshire, England: Emerald Publishing Limited: 4–33. doi:10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007. ISSN 2397-7604. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
  28. ^ Cervantes, Mario. "Academic Patenting: How universities and public research organizations are using their intellectual property to boost research and spur innovative start-ups". World Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved 2018-03-04.
  29. ^ Sanberg, Paul R.; Gharib, Morteza; Harker, Patrick T.; Kaler, Eric W.; Marchase, Richard B.; Sands, Timothy D.; Arshadi, Nasser; Sarkar, Sudeep (2014-05-06). "Changing the academic culture: Valuing patents and commercialization toward tenure and career advancement". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (18): 6542–6547. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6542S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1404094111. PMC 4020064. PMID 24778248.
  30. ^ Mugruza-Vassallo, C. A.; Suárez, S. M. (October 2016). "Academia and patents at information and communications technology in South-America productivity". 2016 6th International Conference on Information Communication and Management (ICICM). pp. 24–29. doi:10.1109/INFOCOMAN.2016.7784209. ISBN 978-1-5090-3495-6. S2CID 16412925.
  31. ^ "Patent filings by women have risen the fastest in academia, IU study finds". IU Bloomington Newsroom. 8 July 2015. Retrieved 2018-03-04.
  32. ^ Sanberg, Paul R.; Gharib, Morteza; Harker, Patrick T.; Kaler, Eric W.; Marchase, Richard B.; Sands, Timothy D.; Arshadi, Nasser; Sarkar, Sudeep (2014-05-06). "Changing the academic culture: Valuing patents and commercialization toward tenure and career advancement" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (18): 6542–6547. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6542S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1404094111. PMC 4020064. PMID 24778248.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Draft_rewrite_of_Notability_(academics)/Side-by-side&oldid=1187622437"