Search results

The publication oeuvre of a researcher carries great value when academic careers are assessed, and being recognised as a successful candidate is usually equated with being a productive author. Yet, how publications are valued in the context of evaluating careers is so far an understudied topic. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Through a content analysis of assessment reports in three disciplines – biomedicine, economics and history – this paper analyses how externalities are used to evaluate publication oeuvres. Externalities are defined as features such as reviews and bibliometric indicators, which can be assessed without evaluating the epistemological claims made in the actual text.

All three fields emphasise similar aspects when assessing: authorship, publication prestige, temporality of research, reputation within the field and boundary keeping. Yet, how these facets of quality are evaluated, and the means through which they are assessed differs between disciplines. Moreover, research fields orient themselves according to different temporal horizons, i.e. history looks to the past and economics to the future when research is evaluated.

The complexities involved in the process of evaluating candidates are also reflected in the findings, and while the comparative approach taken effectively highlights domain specific differences it may also hide counter-narratives, and subtle intradisciplinary discussion on quality.

This study offers a novel perspective on how publications are valued when assessing academic careers. Especially striking is how research across different fields is evaluated through different time horizons. This finding is significant in the debate on more overarching and formal systems of research evaluation.

Research excellency has long been the dominant paradigm in assessing academic quality and hence a prime determinant of academic careers. Lately, this approach to academic performance has come under higher scrutiny for its narrow focus on the individual, promoted an exclusive, performance-oriented talent management and inhibiting collaboration, transparency and societal involvement.

As a response to the limitations of the excellency policy, this chapter examines the emergence of open science as a transformative force in the academic world. Open science represents a paradigm shift, emphasizing the importance of transparency, and increased societal engagement in the academic process. It opens up the possibility to include the context dimension, multiple stakeholders and a more diverse set of development and performance indicators.

This chapter stresses the urgent need to realign our system of recognition and rewards with the premise of open science and with talent management. By highlighting the disconnect between current recognition mechanisms and the values of universities, this chapter emphasizes the necessity of transformative changes at institutional and systemic levels.

To provide concrete insights into the implementation of these changes, this chapter explores a case study of Utrecht University. This specific example showcases how strategic decisions at an institute level allow navigation of the complexities of recognizing and rewarding open science practices. The Utrecht University case study serves as an inspiration for other institutions seeking to embrace open science and adapt their policies and practices accordingly.

With the development of machine learning techniques, the artificial intelligence systems such as crowd networks are becoming more autonomous and smart. Therefore, there is a growing demand for developing a universal intelligence measurement so that the intelligence of artificial intelligence systems can be evaluated. This paper aims to propose a more formalized and accurate machine intelligence measurement method.

This paper proposes a quality–time–complexity universal intelligence measurement method to measure the intelligence of agents.

By observing the interaction process between the agent and the environment, we abstract three major factors for intelligence measure as quality, time and complexity of environment.

This paper proposes a calculable universal intelligent measure method through considering more than two factors and the correlations between factors which are involved in an intelligent measurement.

Many recommender systems are generally unable to provide accurate recommendations to users with limited interaction history, which is known as the cold-start problem. This issue can be resolved by trivial approaches that select random items or the most popular one to recommend to the new users. However, these methods perform poorly in many cases. This paper aims to explore the problem that how to make accurate recommendations for the new users in cold-start scenarios.

In this paper, the authors propose embedded-bandit method, inspired by Word2Vec technique and contextual bandit algorithm. The authors describe user contextual information with item embedding features constructed by Word2Vec. In addition, based on the intelligence measurement model in Crowd Science, the authors propose a new evaluation method to measure the utility of recommendations.

The authors introduce Word2Vec technique for constructing user contextual features, which improved the accuracy of recommendations compared to traditional multi-armed bandit problem. Apart from this, using this study’s intelligence measurement model, the utility also outperforms.

Improving the accuracy of recommendations during the cold-start phase can greatly raise user stickiness and increase user favorability, which in turn contributes to the commercialization of the app.

The algorithm proposed in this paper reflects that user contextual features can be represented by clicked items embedding vector.

In academia, assessment is often narrow in its focus on research productivity, its application of a limited number of standardised metrics and its summative approach aimed at selection. This approach, corresponding to an exclusive, subject-oriented concept of talent management, can be thought of as at odds with a broader view of the role of academic institutions as accelerating and improving science and scholarship and its societal impact. In recent years, open science practices as well as research integrity issues have increased awareness of the need for a more inclusive approach to assessment and talent management in academia, broadening assessment to reward the full spectrum of academic activities and, within that spectrum, deepening assessment by critically reflecting on the processes and indicators involved (both qualitative and quantitative). In terms of talent management, this would mean a move from research-focused assessment to assessment including all academic activities (including education, professional performance and leadership), a shift from focus on the individual to a focus on collaboration in teams (recognising contributions of both academic and support staff), increased attention for formative assessment and greater agency for those being evaluated, as well as around the data, tools and platforms used in assessment. Together, this represents a more inclusive, subject-oriented approach to talent management. Implementation of such changes requires involvement from university management, human resource management and academic and support staff at all career levels, and universities would benefit from participation in mutual learning initiatives currently taking shape in various regions of the world.

Worldwide academia is going through a major transformation because of Open Science and Recognition and Rewards movements that are linked to big societal challenges such as climate change, digitalization, growing inequality, migration, political instability, democracies under threat and combinations of these challenges. The transformations affect the human resource management (HRM) and talent management of universities. The main focus of this chapter is on collaborative innovation and the way universities participate in coalitions and strategic alliances on national and international levels. These platforms not only discuss the transformations and support the academic changes but also act as talent pools and talent exchange. This chapter provides an overview of the current state of affairs with respect to Open Science and Recognition and Rewards in academia. Next, a theoretical foundation is presented on the concepts of collaborative innovation, coopetition and HRM innovation in general. The leaders or leading organizations in the HRM innovation models often can’t make it happen on their own, in particular in highly institutionalized contexts such as academia. The legitimacy of transformations requires coalitions of the willing and therefore strategic alliances on different levels. The coalitions in academia can also contribute to academic talent management through sectoral transformations (see Recognition and Rewards) and through the way these coalitions operate.

This final chapter of this book highlights and critically discusses some specific issues concerning talent management in the context of higher education raised in the chapters of this book. It recapitulates the transition higher education is going through. This transition started decades ago but was boosted by the movements of Open Science and Recognition and Rewards. It leads to a reorientation on the conceptualization of academic performance and subsequently also on the meaning of talent and talent management in academia. It points to a shift from an exclusive and performance orientation on talent, to an inclusive, developmental approach to talent management or a hybrid form. Yet, Thunnissen and Boselie state that there is a talent crisis in academia, and this crisis urges the need for more innovative ways of developing and implementing talent management practices. This chapter ends with some recommendations for further talent management research and practice.

The purpose of this study is to analyse how academic staff cope with the new culture of performance measurement and assessment in universities. In particular, the study aims to shed light on how external pressures related to measurement of research performance are translated into organisational and individual academic responses within the university and the extent to which these responses are related specifically to the operational features of performance measurement systems (PMS).

The study is based on a case study conducted in an Italian public university and based on interviews with a cross-disciplinary sample of faculty members.

The study provides insights into how linking financial incentives and career progression to research performance metrics at the system and organisational levels may have important reorientation effects on individual behaviours and epistemic consequences for the academic work.

The study is based on interviews, so one limitation is related to the risk of researcher and interviewee personal bias. Moreover, this study is focused on one single case of a specific university setting, which cannot be fully representative of the experiences of others.

The study contributes to the literature on management accounting by exploring the factors that might explain why the unintended effects of PMS on academics’ behaviour reported by several studies might occur. From a practitioner’s point of view, it shows features of PMS that may produce unintended effects on academic activities. It also highlights the need to rethink PMS for the evaluation of university performance through the involvement of different stakeholders.

The socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics reflects the characteristics of ushering into a new era, and the research object thereof shifts to productive forces. Emancipating and developing productive forces and achieving common prosperity become the main theme. Wealth supersedes value as the fundamental category of economic analysis.

The theoretical system of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics cannot proceed from transcendental theories but is problem-oriented. Leading problems involve development stages and research-level problems.

The economic operation analysis is subject to the goal of optimal allocation of resources with micro-level analysis focused on efficiency and macro-level analysis focused on economic growth and macroeconomic stability also known as economic security. The economic development analysis explores the laws of development and related development concepts in compliance with laws of productive forces. The new development concepts i.e. the innovative coordinated green open and shared development drive the innovation of development theory in political economy.

Accordingly, the political economy cannot study the system only, but also needs to study the problems of economic operation and economic development. Therefore, the theoretical system of the political economy tends to encompass three major parts, namely economic system, economic operation and economic development (including foreign economy). The basic economic system analysis needs to understand the relationship between public ownership and non-public ownership, between distribution according to work and factor payments, and between socialism and market economy from the perspective of coexistence theory, thus transforming institutional advantage into governance advantage.

The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss Luciano Floridi’s 2019 book The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design, the latest instalment in his philosophy of information (PI) tetralogy, particularly with respect to its implications for library and information studies (LIS).

Nine scholars with research interests in philosophy and LIS read and responded to the book, raising critical and heuristic questions in the spirit of scholarly dialogue. Floridi responded to these questions.

Floridi’s PI, including this latest publication, is of interest to LIS scholars, and much insight can be gained by exploring this connection. It seems also that LIS has the potential to contribute to PI’s further development in some respects.

Floridi’s PI work is technical philosophy for which many LIS scholars do not have the training or patience to engage with, yet doing so is rewarding. This suggests a role for translational work between philosophy and LIS.

The book symposium format, not yet seen in LIS, provides forum for sustained, multifaceted and generative dialogue around ideas.