There are currently broad moves to reform research assessment, especially to better incentivize open and responsible research and avoid problematic use of inappropriate quantitative indicators. This study adds to the evidence base for such decision-making by investigating researcher perceptions of current processes of research assessment in institutional review, promotion, and tenure processes. Analysis of an international survey of 198 respondents reveals a disjunct between personal beliefs and perceived institutional priorities (‘value dissonance’), with practices of open and responsible research, as well as ‘research citizenship’ comparatively poorly valued by institutions at present. Our findings hence support current moves to reform research assessment. But we also add crucial nuance to the debate by discussing the relative weighting of open and responsible practices and suggesting that fostering research citizenship activities like collegiality and mentorship may be an important way to rebalance criteria towards environments, which better foster quality, openness, and responsibility.

中文翻译：

---

研究评估中的价值失调：审查、晋升和终身教职方面的个人和感知的机构优先事项

目前正在采取广泛的改革研究评估的举措，特别是为了更好地激励开放和负责任的研究，并避免使用不适当的定量指标。本研究通过调查研究人员对机构审查、晋升和终身教职过程中当前研究评估过程的看法，为此类决策提供了证据基础。对 198 名受访者进行的一项国际调查分析显示，个人信仰与所感知的机构优先事项之间存在脱节（“价值不一致”），目前机构对开放和负责任的研究实践以及“研究公民身份”的重视程度相对较低。因此，我们的研究结果支持当前改革研究评估的举措。但我们还通过讨论开放和负责任实践的相对权重，并建议促进研究公民活动（如合作和指导）可能是重新平衡环境标准的重要方式，从而更好地促进质量、开放性和责任感，从而为辩论增添了关键的细微差别。 。