Wei Quan

Bio: Wei Quan is an academic researcher from Hunan University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Higher education & Excellence. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 3 publications receiving 158 citations.

Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016)

Abstract: Purpose The purpose of this study is to present the landscape of the cash-per-publication reward policy in China and reveal its trend since the late 1990s. Design/methodology/approach This study is based on the analysis of 168 university documents regarding the cash-per-publication reward policy at 100 Chinese universities. Findings Chinese universities offer cash rewards from 30 to 165,000 USD for papers published in journals indexed by Web of Science (WoS), and the average reward amount has been increasing for the past 10 years. Originality/value The cash-per-publication reward policy in China has never been systematically studied and investigated before except for in some case studies. This is the first paper that reveals the landscape of the cash-per-publication reward policy in China.

The role of Web of Science publications in China's tenure system

Abstract: Tenure provides a permanent position to faculty in higher education institutions. In North America, it is granted to those who have established a record of excellence in research, teaching and services in a limited period. However, in China, research excellence represented by the number of Web of Science publications is highly weighted in the tenure assessment compared to excellence in teaching and services, but this has never been systematically investigated. By analyzing the tenure assessment documents from Chinese universities, this study reveals the role of Web of Science publications in China tenure system and presents the landscape of the tenure assessment process in Chinese higher education institutions.

The role of Web of Science publications in China’s tenure system

Abstract: Tenure provides a permanent position to faculty in higher education institutions. In North America, it is granted to those who have established a record of excellence in research, teaching and services in a limited period. However, in China, research excellence (represented by the number of Web of Science publications) is highly weighted in the tenure assessment compared to excellence in teaching and services, but this has never been systematically investigated. By analyzing the tenure assessment documents from Chinese Universities, this study reveals the role of Web of Science publications in China’s tenure system and presents the landscape of the tenure assessment process in Chinese higher education institutions.

Implicit Discriminatory Bias Reflected in Yelp Reviews - A case study

Abstract: Online reviews are one of the most comprehensive and valuable sources of information actively sought by past, current, and potential customers. Especially for the service industry, such as restaurants, online reviews play a pivotal role in customers’ decision-making. Although the reviews contain rich information about the objective features and qualities of the restaurants, they can also reflect the particular qualities of an individual reviewer (perceptions and behaviors). This study aims to test people’s different reviewing behaviors on Chinese and French restaurants from two dimensions: users’ star ratings and users’ sentiments. We analyze data from Yelp - a platform that publishes crowdsourced reviews about businesses. Findings from this pilot study lay the foundation for a series of follow-up research. This work uncovers subtle information extracted from Yelp reviews and derives insights into how implicit discriminatory bias can manifest within online platforms. Furthermore, we should reduce bias when utilizing computational techniques on big data.

A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers

Abstract: Web of Science and Scopus are two world-leading and competing citation databases. By using the Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, this paper conducts a comparative, dynamic, and empirical study focusing on the use of Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus in academic papers published during 2004 and 2018. This brief communication reveals that although both Web of Science and Scopus are increasingly used in academic papers, Scopus as a new-comer is really challenging the dominating role of WoS. Researchers from more and more countries/regions and knowledge domains are involved in the use of these two databases. Even though the main producers of related papers are developed economies, some developing economies such as China, Brazil and Iran also act important roles but with different patterns in the use of these two databases. Both two databases are widely used in meta-analysis related studies especially for researchers in China. Health/medical science related domains and the traditional Information Science and Library Science field stand out in the use of citation databases.

Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure.

Abstract: Assessment of researchers is necessary for decisions of hiring, promotion, and tenure. A burgeoning number of scientific leaders believe the current system of faculty incentives and rewards is misaligned with the needs of society and disconnected from the evidence about the causes of the reproducibility crisis and suboptimal quality of the scientific publication record. To address this issue, particularly for the clinical and life sciences, we convened a 22-member expert panel workshop in Washington, DC, in January 2017. Twenty-two academic leaders, funders, and scientists participated in the meeting. As background for the meeting, we completed a selective literature review of 22 key documents critiquing the current incentive system. From each document, we extracted how the authors perceived the problems of assessing science and scientists, the unintended consequences of maintaining the status quo for assessing scientists, and details of their proposed solutions. The resulting table was used as a seed for participant discussion. This resulted in six principles for assessing scientists and associated research and policy implications. We hope the content of this paper will serve as a basis for establishing best practices and redesigning the current approaches to assessing scientists by the many players involved in that process.

The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity.

Abstract: For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency. We have developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behaviors that strengthen research integrity. We present five principles: responsible research practices; transparent reporting; open science (open research); valuing a diversity of types of research; and recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity. For each principle, we provide a rationale for its inclusion and provide examples where these principles are already being adopted.

Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations

Abstract: We analyzed how often and in what ways the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is currently used in review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents of a representative sample of universities from the United States and Canada. 40% of research-intensive institutions and 18% of master’s institutions mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 87% supported its use in at least one of their RPT documents, 13% expressed caution about its use, and none heavily criticized it or prohibited its use. Furthermore, 63% of institutions that mentioned the JIF associated the metric with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. We conclude that use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and that there is work to be done to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.