PCI Organization Studies

Title *

A qualitative and multicriteria assessment of scientists: a perspective based on a case study of INRAE, Franceuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

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"

Year *

2024

Picture *

Abstract *

<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>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@orgstudies.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw data are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

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://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@orgstudies.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw scripts are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

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://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@orgstudies.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw codes are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

multicriteria assessment, open science, peers, qualitative evaluation, research assessment

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Evaluation

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

Federico Vasen suggested: Miguel Sierra, Federico Vasen suggested: Nerina Sarthou

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

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

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2023-05-23 12:05:45

Recommender

Devi Vijay

Reviewers

FOLLOW US

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY