Skip to main content
  • Dossier “Innovation and Good Practices in University Government and Management”
  • Open Access
  • Published:

Digital Scholarship and the Tenure Process as an Indicator of Change in Universities

La producción académica digital y el proceso de obtención de la titularidad académica como indicador del cambio en las universidades


In this paper, the author aims to demonstrate that a practical barometer of how universities are dealing with the changes wrought by a digital, networked world can be found in the manner in which their reward and tenure processes recognise digital scholarship. The use of new technologies by academics to perform research, construct knowledge, disseminate ideas, engage students in learning and conduct a wide range of scholarly activities generates a number of issues for established reward and tenure systems, which can be seen as a representative microcosm of the issues facing universities more generally.


Con este artículo el autor quiere demostrar que el reconocimiento a la producción académica digital en los procesos de recompensa y titularidad académica es un barómetro útil para saber cómo las universidades abordan los cambios introducidos por el mundo digital y en red. El uso de las nuevas tecnologías en la investigación, en la construcción de conocimiento, en la difusión de las ideas, en los procesos para que el alumnado participe en el aprendizaje y en una amplia gama de actividades académicas da lugar a una serie de problemas para los sistemas de recompensa y titularidad académica establecidos, que pueden entenderse como un microcosmos representativo de los problemas a los que deben enfrentarse las universidades desde un punto de vista más general.


  1. BECKER, J. (2009). “What I’ve Learned from/with Dr Alec Couros”. <>

  2. BLAIS, J.; IPPOLITO, J.; SMITH, O. (2007). “New Criteria for New Media” Leonardo. Vol. 42, No 1, pages 71–5.

    Google Scholar 

  3. CHEVERIE, J. F.; BOETTCHER, J.; BUSCHMAN, J. (2009). “Digital Scholarship in the University Tenure and Promotion Process”. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. Vol. 40, No 3, pages 219–230. <> <>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. CRONIN, B.; SNYDER, H. W.; ROSENBAUM, H.; MARTINSON, A.; CALLAHAN, E. (1998). “Invoked on the Web”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Vol. 49, No 14, pages 1319–1328. <;2-W>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. FALAGAS, M.; ALEXIOU, V. (2008). “The Top Ten in Journal Impact Factor Manipulation”. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapie Experimentalis. Vol. 56, No 4, pages 223–226. <>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. HARLEY, D.; ACORD, S.; EARL-NOVELL, S.; LAWRENCE, S.; KING, C. (2010). Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines. Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley. <>

  7. HEPPELL, S. (2001). “Preface”. ICT, Pedagogy and the Curriculum. London: Routledge. Page xv. <>

    Google Scholar 

  8. HIRSCH, J. E. (2005). “An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output”. <http://arxiv:physics/0508025>

  9. MAREK, K.; VALAUSKAS, E. J. (2002). “Web Logs as Indices of Electronic Journal Use”. Libri. Vol. 52, No 4, pages 220–230. <>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. PATTERSON, M. (2009). “Article-Level Metrics at PLoS — Addition of Usage Data”. PLoS BLOGS. <>

  11. PRIEM, J.; HEMMINGER, B. (2010). “Scientometrics 2.0”. First Monday. Vol. 15, No 7. <>

  12. SCHONFELD, R. C.; HOUSEWRIGHT, R. (2010). Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers, and Societies. Ithaka. <>

  13. SMITH RUMSEY, A. (2010). Scholarly Communication Institute 8: Emerging Genres in Scholarly Communication. University of Virginia Library. <>

  14. WALTHAM, M. (2009). The Future of Scholarly Journals Publishing among Social Science and Humanities Associations. Report on a study funded by a Planning Grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. <>

  15. WATERS, L. (2000). “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Books of the Members of the MLA from Being a Burden to Their Authors, Publishers, or Audiences”. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. Vol. 115, No 3, pages 315–317. <>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. WELLER, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How technology is transforming academic practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic. <>

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Weller.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weller, M. Digital Scholarship and the Tenure Process as an Indicator of Change in Universities. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 9, 347–360 (2012).

Download citation


  • tenure
  • digital scholarship
  • promotion
  • research
  • metrics

Palabras clave

  • Proceso de titularidad académica
  • producción académica digital
  • promoción
  • investigación
  • mediciones