The Fora: A Higher Education Community

My own institutions mandates teaching as 70% of your evaluation, with research (or "faculty development") and service allowed to make up 30% in whatever combination (multiples of 5%) you wish. This would be an Option 5.

I'm only curious as to how people perceive their institutions, and have no ulterior motive or use in mind for these results.

I would say that we are an aspiring research institution that still values teaching. Service requirements are highly variable among departments. Mine is pretty low; other small departments need warm bodies on committees.

I'm at 50-40-10 here at my aspiring research institution. It gets tricky because that 50 is still a 4/4, but we do get grad student graders for pretty much every class.

We're at 40-40-20 research-teaching-service. In theory.  In practice, the teaching tends to consume about 70% of the time, so I'd say we're actually at 20-70-30. Yes, that does equal more than 100.

R1 science: We hire assistant professors typically with 60% research. Any less would not be tenurable, any more and research would have to carry the whole tenure package.

We expect quite a bit from the research component, not only publications but assessment of what happened as a result of those publications and the associated research. I jokingly say that a million dollars does wonders for a tenure package. The reality is that it will take that much money to do an appropriate amount of research.

Teaching quality is critical since we have high-performing and high-paying students, and base funds are tried to enrollment. While the number of courses is low (1-1 or 1-2), the instructor usually develops them from the ground up and most are unique to our school. That's a lot of prep! We also assess teaching effectiveness for tenure in multiple ways. (There is training for those who are hired with only TAing as teaching experience). Great researchers have run into tenure trouble for not getting the teaching right.

We go easy on the service before tenure.

One manuscript for every 20% FTE in research.  One graduate course every other-year and co-teaching a grad class every year for every 20% FTE in teaching.  These are informal guidelines in my department.  Quality matters, but the metrics that constitute quality vary from position-to-position within the department.

R1 University but within a smaller college.  The goalposts continue to shift so it is tough to say.  However conventional wisdom is $750,000 in funding, 12 manuscripts in reputable journals.  Typical teaching load is a 2-1, but with minimal TA support and the expectation to develop entirely new content for the assigned courses.

Mine's a regional university that transitioned up from being a community college about ten years ago. There's no tenure system here (yet), just a unionized faculty pool. Advancement is predicated entirely on teaching and service, with no research component. The load is 4-4 (or 3-3-2ish), and you're expected to give 37 service hours per course--so, around 296 hours of service a year.

Quote from: Hegemony on July 10, 2019, 02:19:07 AM
We're at 40-40-20 research-teaching-service. In theory.  In practice, the teaching tends to consume about 70% of the time, so I'd say we're actually at 20-70-30. Yes, that does equal more than 100.

This sounds like us.

(Indeed, I've often wondered over the years if we work together.)

Our standard distribution is 40-40-20.  Tenure mostly focuses on research, but there is no hard formula for output (as it should be).  That's not to say teaching isn't important, and poor performance could sink a case, but excellent teaching would not substitute for a poor research portfolio.

We don't have a formula, but certainly teaching is emphasized over teaching  by a lot, and this is what is stated in the handbook (as well as service). Even with the percentages though (in our case just roughly approximated), every category is a potential sine qua non. That is, if you are poor in one category, its going to be almost impossible to make up for it in another and still get tenure. I suppose its happened, since we tend to be lenient.

I'm not sure "way too much service" is accurate for everybody at my school, since a lot of people get a way with either the minimum or nothing. Its even worse when people are given awards when they are in this category (its easier to get a paper published or plan a new class if you are not being forced to even serve on the Parking Ticket Appeals Committee). Competent people are often urged to run for important committees, and then often are the ones who either volunteer or are urged to become Chair. I actually feel that this is important, especially for full professors.

Quote from: Ruralguy on July 11, 2019, 07:03:19 AM
We don't have a formula, but certainly teaching is emphasized over teaching  by a lot, and this is what is stated in the handbook (as well as service). Even with the percentages though (in our case just roughly approximated), every category is a potential sine qua non. That is, if you are poor in one category, its going to be almost impossible to make up for it in another and still get tenure. I suppose its happened, since we tend to be lenient.

I'm not sure "way too much service" is accurate for everybody at my school, since a lot of people get a way with either the minimum or nothing. Its even worse when people are given awards when they are in this category (its easier to get a paper published or plan a new class if you are not being forced to even serve on the Parking Ticket Appeals Committee). Competent people are often urged to run for important committees, and then often are the ones who either volunteer or are urged to become Chair. I actually feel that this is important, especially for full professors.

Yes, I realized that "way too much" as the only option for Service was inadequate, but it seems to reflect the opinions of many (most?) faculty to whom I've spoken, and a poll allows only five options. I suppose I could have put in another poll, with varying levels of service vs. research and "way too much teaching," and another with service vs. teaching and "way too much research," but even then....

Well there's the official breakdown, and then there is reality. I'm at a compass point comprehensive master's institution. Officially we are 70% Teaching 25% research 5% service. But the reality is more 50-50-50. Now what thta looks like in terms of funding or papers gets even more murky depending on your department.
    In the tenure discussions there has been a huge overemphasis on the research as its the one part people feel can be objectively critiqued. At least that was the case until our new President arrived an now it's all about that overall score on your teaching evaluations.  So I likely won't be going up for Full until that fight with the union blows over.

Here at my public regional 4-4, its two peer-reviewed "things" for tenure (book chapters, articles, etc). I think we are probably in the 60-20-20+ range. You can bring one of them with you, though I should have the two at my new place without a problem. Venue doesn't matter at all, in fact, I've been told not to submit to places that take too long for review (ie, aim high, but not at somewhere that will take a year, so you have plenty of time to go quickly down the food chain). Co-authored also dosen't matter, though my book and current R&R are solo. 

Quote from: mythbuster on July 11, 2019, 07:55:06 AM
Well there's the official breakdown, and then there is reality.

That's an important thing to realize, especially at an institution with aspirations or delusions of grandeur. At many schools, the bar keeps rising, often so fast that a tenure packet that was approved just a few years ago might not be today. Faculty members who got tenure with just a handful of publications may expect their younger colleagues to have twice as many.
And there are the subjective "intangibles" such as collegiality, which can be interpreted however someone wants.

So... I have a modest proposal. Any department that wants to increase tenure expectations should have to do so retroactively. Anyone who got tenure in the past 10 years should have the new standards applied to them. if they wouldn't have gotten tenure, then their tenure should be retroactively revoked up until the date when they did meet the new standards, and should have to pay back whatever additional salary they earned during that time.

for example.
Professor A got tenure five years ago with two publications.
The new standard is three publications.
Professor A didn't get a third publication until last year.
Professor A got a $10,000/year increase in salary.
Professor A would still have tenure, but would be expected to repay 4 years of that salary increase ($40,000)

Quote from: Trogdor on July 11, 2019, 04:49:36 PM
So... I have a modest proposal. Any department that wants to increase tenure expectations should have to do so retroactively. Anyone who got tenure in the past 10 years should have the new standards applied to them. if they wouldn't have gotten tenure, then their tenure should be retroactively revoked up until the date when they did meet the new standards, and should have to pay back whatever additional salary they earned during that time.

The problem here is that it is often not the faculty driving the quest for tenure, but the administration, who want to raise the prestige(?) of the institution. (This may not be just for bragging rights; I suspect that some other considerations, such as how much of a cut they can take from grants for "overhead," or even what sorts of grants they might be considered for, may depend on this perception.) I talked with faculty perhaps 10 years back at an institution I'd known from some years earlier; they were considerably unhappy about the steep requirements for tenure.  They actively discouraged me from applying for any positions at the institution.

I'm at an R1 but in the Arts. I know from talking to people in other fields bringing in grants and money to support your research is very important. In Humanities fields research is a fairly high standard of achievement in being published. I just went up for tenure, hit the research numbers out of the park, but had petty arguments against tenure based on lower than average student eval averages, at least that was the only objective reason given, even though I teach primarily freshmen. If the right people like you, you will get tenure, if they don't, it appears all the research achievements in the world won't matter.

Quote from: SquarePeg on July 14, 2019, 10:20:56 PM
I'm at an R1 but in the Arts. I know from talking to people in other fields bringing in grants and money to support your research is very important. In Humanities fields research is a fairly high standard of achievement in being published. I just went up for tenure, hit the research numbers out of the park, but had petty arguments against tenure based on lower than average student eval averages, at least that was the only objective reason given, even though I teach primarily freshmen. If the right people like you, you will get tenure, if they don't, it appears all the research achievements in the world won't matter.

At my research intensive university teaching is not enough to get tenure if research is low, but it can sink a case even if research is good.  I believe it even says this (in other words) in our contract.

So, I can't comment on your case, but unacceptable teaching can sink a case regardless of people liking you or not.  However, I agree that peoples' opinion of you matter just as much as the paper version of you.  Teaching evaluations can be used against you or justified based on this.

Hope it works out in the end square peg.

Quote from: Golazo on July 11, 2019, 09:20:36 AM
Here at my public regional 4-4, its two peer-reviewed "things" for tenure (book chapters, articles, etc).

Pretty much the same here, at my 4-4 school that just attained R2 status. We also have to have at least 2 juried conference presentations. In theory, that means that someone with multiple books but no presentations could be denied tenure, but I don't think that's ever actually come up.

Quote from: Phydeaux on July 15, 2019, 05:52:38 AM

Quote from: Golazo on July 11, 2019, 09:20:36 AM
Here at my public regional 4-4, its two peer-reviewed "things" for tenure (book chapters, articles, etc).

Pretty much the same here, at my 4-4 school that just attained R2 status. We also have to have at least 2 juried conference presentations. In theory, that means that someone with multiple books but no presentations could be denied tenure, but I don't think that's ever actually come up.

Wow. It's 4-5 here and we forever hover at the R2/R3 edge.

Research active SLAC here... No direct breakdowns, but a requirement of "excellence" in teaching and scholarship and "significant" service. So like 60/40/40, honestly.

No exact publication count, but most people have several going up, along with (usually) external funding in the sciences.

I am at a lower rated R1 in an Institute, not a Department.   In our Institute,  there aren't any tenured faculty.  Still, faculty promotions go through the same channels as all other university faculty.   i would say the importance between Research/Teaching/Service for promotion is about 80/10/10.   From Assistant to Associate,  you can get promoted purely on publications of your research; however to go from Associate to Full,  you better be bringing in fresh grant money to the Institute.   

Quote from: Trogdor on July 11, 2019, 04:49:36 PM
So... I have a modest proposal. Any department that wants to increase tenure expectations should have to do so retroactively. Anyone who got tenure in the past 10 years should have the new standards applied to them. if they wouldn't have gotten tenure, then their tenure should be retroactively revoked up until the date when they did meet the new standards, and should have to pay back whatever additional salary they earned during that time.

for example.
Professor A got tenure five years ago with two publications.
The new standard is three publications.
Professor A didn't get a third publication until last year.
Professor A got a $10,000/year increase in salary.
Professor A would still have tenure, but would be expected to repay 4 years of that salary increase ($40,000)

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this proposal (which would not go anywhere even if it were proposed seriously). The mission of an institution can change through time, departments add graduate programs, they get more funding to hire faculty, .... The tenure standards in place at the time you're hired are what should matter. Punishing tenured faculty when the department shifts from undergrad-only to having a grad program doesn't make much sense.

Would you make the same argument about teaching? If someone got tenure with a 2/2 teaching load, but due to budget cuts the teaching load rose to 3/3, should all tenured faculty have to pay back a third of the salary they earned under the old system?

Quote from: Volhiker78 on July 16, 2019, 11:07:47 AM
I am at a lower rated R1 in an Institute, not a Department.   In our Institute,  there aren't any tenured faculty.  Still, faculty promotions go through the same channels as all other university faculty.   i would say the importance between Research/Teaching/Service for promotion is about 80/10/10.   From Assistant to Associate,  you can get promoted purely on publications of your research; however to go from Associate to Full,  you better be bringing in fresh grant money to the Institute.

I'm missing one piece of this story. Could you clarify one thing? How can you get enough publications to merit promotion to Associate on an 80% research expectation without also bringing in substantial grant funds to pay for that research? Does the institute provide a lot of base resources?

Hibush - Most of our faculty are in service type roles (epidemiology/biostatistics/bioinformatics) as opposed to clinical/laboratory.  I do research on biostat methodology and publish on my own but most of my publications are in clinical journals with others as first authors. In order to go from Assoc to Full for me - the expectation would be that my research is significant enough that someone would be willing to fund such methodological research.     

You need an option for "it's a moving target as our smallish institution lurches all over the place in response to demographic shifts and prior-administration financial shenanigans".

I honestly have no idea what these people want; fortunately I have another three years to get there, wherever "there" is.

Some here forget that research is a "requirement" at four-year/plus-four places; at less stringent two-year places--well, not really at all unless they suffer from r-envy.  Some are most happy in the library/lab; some are most happy in the classroom and no pressure beyond.  The Fora seem to pay little attention to the second case.

I think this is one of those "it depends" questions.  I am at a R1 and since we do 360 evaluations within my department annually, I can see that each TT faculty member has a different percentage for teaching-research-service and it can be negotiated with the chair each year. I have stuck with mine since being hired, which is 50% teaching, 30% research, 20% service.  Even though it is a R1, teaching has been highly valued during my annual reviews, but I am guessing research will likely be weighted more than 30% for my P&T review this coming semester.  We have a mentor program within my college for all TT faculty, and I have had three different mentors from departments outside of mine within the college who are unable to provide me a magic number of publications needed, including the mentor who is on the college P&T committee.  I just hope my number of refereed articles coupled with my first book coming out in a few weeks is sufficient.  At my mid-tenure review, the college committee told me to get a grant as my main research priority at that time, so I got the biggest one in my field last year (which is very little money but from a prestigious organization).  Because of that, I feel confident that I addressed their suggestions, and my teaching evaluations have been great thus far.

Quote from: Juvenal on July 27, 2019, 03:21:24 PM
Some here forget that research is a "requirement" at four-year/plus-four places; at less stringent two-year places--well, not really at all unless they suffer from r-envy.  Some are most happy in the library/lab; some are most happy in the classroom and no pressure beyond.  The Fora seem to pay little attention to the second case.

This is field dependent. Research is a requirement, even if a much smaller one, even at two years in my field. A lot of the research ends up being pedagogy based, but there are still research requirements for tenure.

Quote from: darkstarrynight on July 27, 2019, 03:51:19 PM
I think this is one of those "it depends" questions.  I am at a R1 and since we do 360 evaluations within my department annually, I can see that each TT faculty member has a different percentage for teaching-research-service and it can be negotiated with the chair each year. I have stuck with mine since being hired, which is 50% teaching, 30% research, 20% service.  Even though it is a R1, teaching has been highly valued during my annual reviews, but I am guessing research will likely be weighted more than 30% for my P&T review this coming semester.  We have a mentor program within my college for all TT faculty, and I have had three different mentors from departments outside of mine within the college who are unable to provide me a magic number of publications needed, including the mentor who is on the college P&T committee.  I just hope my number of refereed articles coupled with my first book coming out in a few weeks is sufficient.  At my mid-tenure review, the college committee told me to get a grant as my main research priority at that time, so I got the biggest one in my field last year (which is very little money but from a prestigious organization).  Because of that, I feel confident that I addressed their suggestions, and my teaching evaluations have been great thus far.

I'm surprised that a R1 allows their faculty to elect 50% teaching and only 30% research, but if your description of your output is any indication, it sounds like they want their cake and to eat it too. In particular, it feels like you're doing more research-wise than what one might reasonably expect from a 30% research election. Do you have a higher teaching load because of the 50% teaching election?

Quote from: Kron3007 on July 15, 2019, 05:32:25 AM


At my research intensive university teaching is not enough to get tenure if research is low, but it can sink a case even if research is good.  I believe it even says this (in other words) in our contract.

That's the situation at my R-1 university. At a recent P&T workshop an associate dean looked across the room and said that teaching & service are important, of course, but they will never get you tenured on their own. You have to be a good teacher (normally construed above 4 on a 1-5 scale on student evaluations' teaching effectiveness), and do a lot of service. But a published book on top of a few articles, plus evidence you've made some progress toward your second book, are considered sufficient. A 2-2 teaching load, including 1 class release on your first year are supposed to help you achieve that.

Quote from: mleok on July 28, 2019, 01:36:25 AM

Quote from: darkstarrynight on July 27, 2019, 03:51:19 PM
I think this is one of those "it depends" questions.  I am at a R1 and since we do 360 evaluations within my department annually, I can see that each TT faculty member has a different percentage for teaching-research-service and it can be negotiated with the chair each year. I have stuck with mine since being hired, which is 50% teaching, 30% research, 20% service.  Even though it is a R1, teaching has been highly valued during my annual reviews, but I am guessing research will likely be weighted more than 30% for my P&T review this coming semester.  We have a mentor program within my college for all TT faculty, and I have had three different mentors from departments outside of mine within the college who are unable to provide me a magic number of publications needed, including the mentor who is on the college P&T committee.  I just hope my number of refereed articles coupled with my first book coming out in a few weeks is sufficient.  At my mid-tenure review, the college committee told me to get a grant as my main research priority at that time, so I got the biggest one in my field last year (which is very little money but from a prestigious organization).  Because of that, I feel confident that I addressed their suggestions, and my teaching evaluations have been great thus far.

I'm surprised that a R1 allows their faculty to elect 50% teaching and only 30% research, but if your description of your output is any indication, it sounds like they want their cake and to eat it too. In particular, it feels like you're doing more research-wise than what one might reasonably expect from a 30% research election. Do you have a higher teaching load because of the 50% teaching election?

I did not choose this load - it was in my offer letter five years ago and I never re-negotiated.  We have a lot of people in my department about to retire so I have no idea how any more classes can be covered (meaning I could not negotiate the teaching load to be less than it is now).  I do not consider my load too high, it is a 3-2 (my first two years were 2-2 and then contractually I added a third class in one semester at the start of my third year).  Other departments in my college have a 3-3 load so I consider mine reasonable (I also teach 2 courses in the summer).  I do not think how it is in my department or college is the same across our campus, but I still believe more weight will be put upon my research output than the percentage suggests in my P&T review.  External reviewers were only sent my publications and CV, not anything about my teaching, for them to write a letter.

R1 Humanities. 45-45-10. But our tenure publication requirements are a bit lower than the average R1, thanks to a kindly and influential older professor who was well aware that academic presses are in jeopardy, and getting a book out in a limited timespan is sometimes impossible for reasons beyond the faculty member's control.

Regional university. 4/4 load. Three publications minimum for tenure. Where those publications are isn't a major factor.

Quote from: Grinch on August 06, 2019, 09:56:10 AM
Regional university. 4/4 load. Three publications minimum for tenure. Where those publications are isn't a major factor.

Are predatory publishers OK?  I'm just curious about the nature of the market for that service.

Quote from: Hibush on August 07, 2019, 06:19:26 PM

Quote from: Grinch on August 06, 2019, 09:56:10 AM
Regional university. 4/4 load. Three publications minimum for tenure. Where those publications are isn't a major factor.

Are predatory publishers OK?  I'm just curious about the nature of the market for that service.

No. Predatory publishers are not acceptable. But a decent journal works; it doesn't have to be a top-tier journal.

I have yet to figure out the market for predatory publishers. I fear it is new PhDs desperate to get something published as they enter the job market. 

Quote from: Grinch on August 07, 2019, 07:40:58 PM
I have yet to figure out the market for predatory publishers. I fear it is new PhDs desperate to get something published as they enter the job market.

Much of the market in my fields is researchers in countries where the requirement is English-language publications.  The well-established, world-class institutions aim for the same outlets that the US/Canada/European researchers use.  The aspiring institutions where research is new and many of the professors earned their degrees through the same institution that now employs them just need English-language publications.

In addition, it's not rare for me to encounter someone who is interested in scientific research, but will not invest the time and energy into working through the formal education system.  Those folks often take a few undergraduate classes and then start writing papers that are rejected for valid, scientific reasons.  Instead of addressing the valid comments, those folks sometimes turn to any publisher who will give their brilliant ideas an outlet because clearly discrimination is at play and the proper path is to publish, be recognized for greatness, and then be allowed to skip all the boring parts to be awarded a big research job or at least a PhD.

Because a handful of people have become very famous scientists this way (or at least that's the short story that gets into legend), those aspiring scientists make bad choices in hopes of doing the hard work that's satisfying instead of the hard work that's necessary to be paid to be a research scientist.

Quote from: Grinch on August 07, 2019, 07:40:58 PM

Quote from: Hibush on August 07, 2019, 06:19:26 PM

Quote from: Grinch on August 06, 2019, 09:56:10 AM
Regional university. 4/4 load. Three publications minimum for tenure. Where those publications are isn't a major factor.

Are predatory publishers OK?  I'm just curious about the nature of the market for that service.

No. Predatory publishers are not acceptable. But a decent journal works; it doesn't have to be a top-tier journal.

I have yet to figure out the market for predatory publishers. I fear it is new PhDs desperate to get something published as they enter the job market.

The ones in my field seem to be authors from small institutions in China and southern Asia. They may have publication requirements, but include these publishers' journals.

Quote from: Hibush on August 08, 2019, 06:07:17 AM

Quote from: Grinch on August 07, 2019, 07:40:58 PM

Quote from: Hibush on August 07, 2019, 06:19:26 PM

Quote from: Grinch on August 06, 2019, 09:56:10 AM
Regional university. 4/4 load. Three publications minimum for tenure. Where those publications are isn't a major factor.

Are predatory publishers OK?  I'm just curious about the nature of the market for that service.

No. Predatory publishers are not acceptable. But a decent journal works; it doesn't have to be a top-tier journal.

I have yet to figure out the market for predatory publishers. I fear it is new PhDs desperate to get something published as they enter the job market.

The ones in my field seem to be authors from small institutions in China and southern Asia. They may have publication requirements, but include these publishers' journals.

I think there is also an portion of people not recognizing that they are predatory journals, as well as some people publishing there hoping to pass them off as real publications.  Where I am we do not have a list of approved publishers or anything, so one could reasonably pass these off on a CV.   

I was reading an article a while ago and things were not adding up.  The article was published in a well known journal, so I questioned why they would publish such garbage.  After a little searching, I came to the journal's website and it turned out that there was a predatory journal with the exact same name as a well established journal.  I dont know how they were getting away with this, but on a CV it would appear to be in a respected journal even though it was most definitely not.  How would anyone catch this when assessing a CV? 

More commonly, many of the predatory journals have names that look very similar to well known journals so if you are evaluating a CV and not looking too closely you would likely not notice that it is in the International journal of basket weavers instead of the International journal of basket weaving.  I suspect that there are people out there mistakenly submitting to such journals as well as desperate people knowingly doing so to put it on their CV.  There are so many journals out there that it is not always apparent when looking at someone's CV.

     

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 08, 2019, 02:05:11 PM

Quote from: Hibush on August 08, 2019, 06:07:17 AM

Quote from: Grinch on August 07, 2019, 07:40:58 PM

Quote from: Hibush on August 07, 2019, 06:19:26 PM

Quote from: Grinch on August 06, 2019, 09:56:10 AM
Regional university. 4/4 load. Three publications minimum for tenure. Where those publications are isn't a major factor.

Are predatory publishers OK?  I'm just curious about the nature of the market for that service.

No. Predatory publishers are not acceptable. But a decent journal works; it doesn't have to be a top-tier journal.

I have yet to figure out the market for predatory publishers. I fear it is new PhDs desperate to get something published as they enter the job market.

The ones in my field seem to be authors from small institutions in China and southern Asia. They may have publication requirements, but include these publishers' journals.

I think there is also an portion of people not recognizing that they are predatory journals, as well as some people publishing there hoping to pass them off as real publications.  Where I am we do not have a list of approved publishers or anything, so one could reasonably pass these off on a CV.   

I was reading an article a while ago and things were not adding up.  The article was published in a well known journal, so I questioned why they would publish such garbage.  After a little searching, I came to the journal's website and it turned out that there was a predatory journal with the exact same name as a well established journal.  I dont know how they were getting away with this, but on a CV it would appear to be in a respected journal even though it was most definitely not.  How would anyone catch this when assessing a CV? 

More commonly, many of the predatory journals have names that look very similar to well known journals so if you are evaluating a CV and not looking too closely you would likely not notice that it is in the International journal of basket weavers instead of the International journal of basket weaving.  I suspect that there are people out there mistakenly submitting to such journals as well as desperate people knowingly doing so to put it on their CV.  There are so many journals out there that it is not always apparent when looking at someone's CV.

     

Out of curiosity I thought I would check to see if the fake journal was still up and running, and somehow it is, although the last few years look pretty light on numbers.  I dont know if posting this is appropriate, but here is a link to the real, and the "other" version of the journal:

https://pubs.acs.org/journal/jnprdf

http://journalofnaturalproducts.com/

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 09, 2019, 01:44:59 PM
Out of curiosity I thought I would check to see if the fake journal was still up and running, and somehow it is, although the last few years look pretty light on numbers.  I dont know if posting this is appropriate, but here is a link to the real, and the "other" version of the journal:

https://pubs.acs.org/journal/jnprdf

http://journalofnaturalproducts.com/

I looked to see if I could tell which was the fake one. Hint - probably the one that says this:

Quote{NOTE: ONE THING MUST BE NOTED THAT THIS JOURNAL (JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS)-ISSN 0974 – 5211; is a new, free assess,only ON-LINE publishing, ANNUAL science journal published from INDIA and THIS IS NOT RELATED OR RESEMBLED IN ANY WAY WITH ALREADY PUBLISHING monthly JOURNAL 'JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS' ISSN 0163-3864 BY 'AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCITY' OR WITH ANY OTHER science journals.}

Quote from: ciao_yall on August 09, 2019, 02:48:48 PM

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 09, 2019, 01:44:59 PM
Out of curiosity I thought I would check to see if the fake journal was still up and running, and somehow it is, although the last few years look pretty light on numbers.  I dont know if posting this is appropriate, but here is a link to the real, and the "other" version of the journal:

https://pubs.acs.org/journal/jnprdf

http://journalofnaturalproducts.com/

I looked to see if I could tell which was the fake one. Hint - probably the one that says this:

Quote{NOTE: ONE THING MUST BE NOTED THAT THIS JOURNAL (JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS)-ISSN 0974 – 5211; is a new, free assess,only ON-LINE publishing, ANNUAL science journal published from INDIA and THIS IS NOT RELATED OR RESEMBLED IN ANY WAY WITH ALREADY PUBLISHING monthly JOURNAL 'JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS' ISSN 0163-3864 BY 'AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCITY' OR WITH ANY OTHER science journals.}

That's awesome.  I guess stating that it doesn't resemble in any way makes it so...

QuoteI looked to see if I could tell which was the fake one. Hint - probably the one that says this.

When the grammar is bad on the "Instruction for Authors" tab, how could anyone trying to publish get confused about whether its predatory or not?

Quote from: xerprofrn on August 10, 2019, 02:52:32 PM

QuoteI looked to see if I could tell which was the fake one. Hint - probably the one that says this.

When the grammar is bad on the "Instruction for Authors" tab, how could anyone trying to publish get confused about whether its predatory or not?

Perhaps if their first language is not English?

The crazy part is that they look the exact same on a CV. 

Quote from: xerprofrn on August 10, 2019, 02:52:32 PM

QuoteI looked to see if I could tell which was the fake one. Hint - probably the one that says this.

When the grammar is bad on the "Instruction for Authors" tab, how could anyone trying to publish get confused about whether its predatory or not?

I have seen some terrible webpages from official sources, including my employer soliciting news tidbits for the internal newsletter.  While we'd hope that a solid publisher has good English grammar everywhere, if one reads enough English-as-an-Nth-language documents and/or hastily written emails because no one has time to revise, then one starts being more generous in what is bad enough that meaning can't be gleaned versus arbitrary rules of correctness.

A quick skim through the "Instruction for Authors" tab indicates some interesting choices that stand out more because of "American English spelling and punctuation is preferred", but nothing on the page indicates more than probably only one person (a non-native English speaker because of the term "covering letter") wrote the page and didn't have anyone else review it.

Generally, tenure requires 3 peer-reviewed articles or a book at my institution.

A really nice and perhaps unique thing we have is that each faculty member writes a plan on how to get tenure. That plan is then negotiated with the department and then the administration, but once everyone accepts the plan it is a binding contract. When someone goes up for tenure the *only* permitted question is whether that person met the teaching, research and service goals in the plan. There are broad guidelines as to what should go into the plan but also a lot of discretion.

So when I was hired to do public and digital history I wrote a plan that weighed collaborative public and digital projects as the equivalent of articles and books.

(Humanities--R1)  A book from a "major university press" for tenure.  That is rather vague, of course.  Or, as I like to think of it, it gives everyone a degree of flexibility.  There is no list of what counts, but I should be safe.