Submit a preprint


A qualitative and multicriteria assessment of scientists: a perspective based on a case study of INRAE, Franceuse asterix (*) to get italics
Denis Tagu, Françoise Boudet-Bône, Camille Brard, Edith Legouy, Frédéric GaymardPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p style="text-align: justify;">Psychosociology theories indicate that individual evaluation is integral to the recognition of professional activities. Building upon Christophe Dejours’ contributions, this recognition is influenced by two complementary judgments: the “utility” judgment from those in hierarchy and the “beauty” judgment from the peers. The aim of this paper is to elucidate how at INRAE individual assessment of scientists is conducted. This process follows a qualitative and multicriteria-based approach by peers, providing both appreciations and advice to the evaluated scientists (the “beauty” judgment). Furthermore, we expound on how INRAE regularly adapts this process to the evolving landscape of research practices, such as interdisciplinary collaboration or open science, assuring that assessments align with the current approaches of research activities.</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
multicriteria assessment, open science, peers, qualitative evaluation, research assessment
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Federico Vasen suggested: Miguel Sierra, Federico Vasen suggested: Nerina Sarthou No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Org Studies. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe []
2023-05-23 12:05:45
Devi Vijay