Shared publicly  - 
Vlado Handziski's profile photoJohn Regehr's profile photo
There's an important question that isn't addressed by this material: Did this guy have a strong tenure case, given whatever the standards are in his department?
He clearly understood that he would be evaluated by raw number of papers/grants but decided to put his focus on teaching/open science. It is still a bit disappointing that the tenure committee did not acknowledge his substantial contributions to the community outside the narrow boundaries of these established promotion "standards".
Hi Vlado, I agree. If were on that committee I'd have argued that it's the total amount of science and its impact that matters, not the specific venues.

Sometimes I'm pessimistic about academics, but here's a tiny story in the other direction. When I was going up for tenure I was all worried about the fact that I generally just publish in conferences and ignore journals. It turned out that this was not a big deal at all -- that battle had already been fought. So even academics can change, given time and hard work. Perhaps it will work the same for open science.
Add a comment...