The criteria used by key decision makers in Australia to judge the academic quality of NTROs

Bibliographic Data

ID5716625
AuthorsAlan Mckee (0000-0003-0577-2061, University of Technology Sydney, corresponding author)
Year2020
Volume177
Issue1
Pages165-175
Publication date2020-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueMedia International Australia (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1329-878X • E-ISSN: 2200-467X
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/1329878x20921565
OpenAlexW3031424397
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited6

Thirty experts in the assessment of the quality of Non-Traditional Research Outputs (NTROs) as academic research outputs were asked to rate the importance of 19 criteria that might be used in making these judgements. Analysis of responses identified four criteria where there is substantial agreement among the community of experts: (a) demonstrated familiarity in the research statement with the current state of knowledge in the relevant academic disciplines (very important); (b) demonstrated familiarity in the research statement with the current state of knowledge in the relevant industry (important); (c) evidence that the work has been engaged with by other academic researchers (relevant); (d) whether the NTRO creator is a substantive university staff member or an adjunct/honorary (unimportant). Fifteen other criteria either reached a less than 'fair' level of agreement, or larger numbers of respondents nominated 'It depends'. Qualitative analysis of comments also revealed noteworthy disagreements in the expert community about how the criteria should be applied

Academic community · Epistemology · Political science · Public relations · Publishing · Social science · Sociology · Aortic aneurysm repair treatments · Artistic and Creative Research · Engineering · Law · Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access