Incentivizing Quality and Impact: Evaluating Scholarship in Hiring, Tenure, and Promotion^{February 2015}

Batya Friedman, University of Washington
Fred B. Schneider, Cornell University

A careful distinction between quality and quantity is key to promoting the future growth of the computing and information field. Toward that end, this document advocates adjustments to hiring, promotion, and tenure practices as well as to the publication culture. Contributions in a small number of high quality publications or artifacts are what should be emphasized; success as a researcher is then not primarily a matter of numbers.

The recommendations that follow were developed over an 18-month period by the CRA Committee on Best Practices for Hiring, Promotion, and Scholarship. As part of this work, the committee conducted interviews in autumn 2013 with more than 75 academic and industry computing and information unit heads to understand the issues and gain insights from practice. Preliminary recommendations were vetted with department chairs and CRA Deans at the Snowbird Conference in July 2014.

Computer Science Postdocs — Best Practices^{December, 2012}

Anita Jones, University of Virginia
Erwin Gianchandani, CRA/CCC (now at NSF)
See also Anita Jones' CACM Viewpoint "The Explosive Growth of Postdocs in Computer Science"

The Computing Research Association’s (CRA) Board of Directors has approved a Best Practices Guide, providing guidance to graduate students, postdocs, advisors and mentors, and departments and institutions on how to have a positive postdoctoral experience within computer science and engineering.  We encourage our colleagues throughout the community to take a look at the document — the latest in a series of white papers about the recent increase in postdocs in the field — and adopt these Best Practices.

Promotion and Tenure of Interdisciplinary Faculty^{September, 2008}

Martha E. Pollack (University of Michigan) 
Marc Snir (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)

The fields of computing and information science and engineering have a strong commitment to interdisciplinary work, with CISE researchers collaborating with electrical engineers in the design of low-power chips; with linguists in the development of natural-language processing systems; with biologists in the exploration of the genetic code; with economists in the formation of theories of on-line commerce; and with statisticians in the discovery of new ways to extract information from rich sets of data—to name just a few examples.

University-Industry Sponsored Research Agreements^{September, 2003}

J Strother Moore (University of Texas, Austin)
Lawrence Snyder (University of Washington)
Philip A. Bernstein (Microsoft Research)

Universities and businesses have considerable incentive to cooperate in the development of intellectual property (IP). Businesses recognize universities for their rich talent pool and enthusiastic graduate students, while universities recognize businesses as a source of real-world problems, technical know-how, and funding. There are numerous examples of successful research collaborations in computer science, computer engineering, and electrical engineering. Mindful that some IP such as gene splicing and human growth hormone have produced “IP goldmines,” many university administrators (and some students and faculty) are eager to establish strong safeguards to protect their rights to intellectual property.

Commercialization Oversight for Computer Research Departments^{July, 2001}

David Patterson (University of California, Berkeley)
Larry Snyder (University of Washington)

The relentless pressure to innovate in the information technology (IT) industry has drawn university researchers and graduate students into entrepreneurial situations to an increasing degree. The trend affects the academic enterprise in diverse ways, both favorable and unfavorable. The risks and rewards are outlined, and the concept of a Commercialization Oversight Committee is described as a mechanism that can facilitate the best outcomes when interests conflict.

Evaluating Computer Scientists and Engineers For Promotion and Tenure^{August, 1999}

David Patterson (University of California, Berkeley)
Lawrence Snyder (University of Washington)
Jeffrey Ullman (Stanford University)

The evaluation of computer science and engineering faculty for promotion and tenure has generally followed the dictate “publish or perish,” where “publish” has had its standard academic meaning of “publish in archival journals” [Academic Careers, 94]. Relying on journal publications as the sole demonstration of scholarly achievement, especially counting such publications to determine whether they exceed a prescribed threshold, ignores significant evidence of accomplishment in computer science and engineering. For example, conference publication is preferred in the field, and computational artifacts - software, chips, etc. - are a tangible means of conveying ideas and insight. Obligating faculty to be evaluated by this traditional standard handicaps their careers, and indirectly harms the field. This document describes appropriate evidence of academic achievement in computer science and engineering.