উইকিপিডিয়া:উল্লেখযোগ্যতা (উচ্চশিক্ষায়তনিক ব্যক্তিত্ব): সংশোধিত সংস্করণের মধ্যে পার্থক্য

উইকিপিডিয়া, মুক্ত বিশ্বকোষ থেকে
বিষয়বস্তু বিয়োগ হয়েছে বিষয়বস্তু যোগ হয়েছে
সম্পাদনা সারাংশ নেই
৮৭ নং লাইন: ৮৭ নং লাইন:
===Notes===
===Notes===
<references />
<references />

[[বিষয়শ্রেণী:উইকিপিডিয়া উল্লেখযোগ্যতা নির্দেশিকা]]

২০:৩২, ২৯ আগস্ট ২০১৬ তারিখে সংশোধিত সংস্করণ

প্রফেসর টেস্ট নামেও পরিচিত এই নীতিমালাটি একাডেমিক ব্যক্তিবর্গের উল্লেখযোগ্যতা যাচাইয়ের উদ্দেশ্যে প্রণীত। একাডেমিক হলেন সে ব্যক্তি যিনি গবেষণাকর্মে বা উচ্চশিক্ষায় নিয়োজিত রয়েছেন এবং একাডেমিক উল্লেখযোগ্যতা বলতে বোঝায় "এরূপ সংশ্লিষ্টতার জন্য পরিচিত"।

  • অধিকাংশ একাডেমিক কলেজ বা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের ফ্যাকাল্টি সদস্য (অধ্যাপক) হয়ে থাকেন বা পূর্বে থেকে থাকবেন। এছাড়াও অনেক একাডেমিক বিভিন্ন একাডেমিক গবেষণা প্রতিষ্ঠান যেমন এনআইএইচ, সিএনআরএস ইত্যাদিতে একাডেমিক বা গবেষণা পদে কর্মরত থাকেন বা পূর্বে থেকে থাকবেন। মোটকথা, উপরোক্ত সংজ্ঞার আলোকে একাডেমিকগণ গবেষণাক্ষেত্রের বাইরেও কাজ করতে পারেন যেমন শিল্প, অর্থনৈতিক ক্ষেত্র, সরকার, চিকিৎসক, আইনজীবী ইত্যাদি ক্ষেত্রে এবং তারা যদি তাদের একাডেমিক অর্জনের কারণে পরিচিত হন তবে তাদের প্রধান কর্মের প্রকৃতি একাডেমিক না হলেও চলবে; অন্যদিকে, যদি তারা তাদের প্রধান কর্মের কারণে উল্লেখযোগ্য হন তবে নিবন্ধ প্রণয়নের জন্য পৃথকভাবে উল্লেখযোগ্য একাডেমিক হতে হবে না।
  • মাধ্যমিক পর্যায়ের শিক্ষাপ্রতিষ্ঠানের স্কুল শিক্ষকদের কখনো কখনো অধ্যাপক বলা হলেও তারা সাধারণভাবে একাডেমিক হিসেবে গণ্য হন না। তারা একাডেমিক হিসেবে গণ্য হবেন যদি তারা উল্লেখযোগ্য পরিমাণ গবেষণা কর্মে নিয়োজিত থাকেন এবং সেসব গবেষণার কারণে পরিচিত হন। অন্যথায় তারা তাদের পেশার ক্ষেত্রে প্রযোজ্য উল্লেখযোগ্যতার নীতির মাধ্যমে বিবেচিত হবেন।
  • একাডেমিক পদসমূহ এবং তাদের অর্থের জন্য অধ্যাপক নিবন্ধ দেখুন। উল্লেখ্য, এসকল পদ দেশভেদে ভিন্ন হয়ে থাকে।

এই নীতিমালা অন্যান্য বিষয়ভিত্তিক উল্লেখযোগ্যতার নীতি যেমন WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH ইত্যাদি থেকে স্বতন্ত্র এবং উল্লেখযোগ্যতার সাধারণ সূচকের বিকল্প।[১] উল্লেখ্য, এই নীতিমালার শর্তসমূহের আওতায় উল্লেখযোগ্য না হয়েও ভিন্ন কোনো বিষয়ভিত্তিক উল্লেখযোগ্যতার নীতিমালার আওতায় একজন একাডেমিক উল্লেখযোগ্য হতে পারেন। অন্যদিকে যদি কোনো একাডেমিক এই নীতিমালার শর্ত পূরণ সাপেক্ষে উল্লেখযোগ্য হন তবে "উল্লেখযোগ্যতার সাধারণ সূচক" বা ভিন্ন কোনো বিষয়ভিত্তিক উল্লেখযোগ্যতার নীতিমালার শর্ত পূরণ করতে হবে না।

শর্ত

যেসকল একাডেমিক/অধ্যাপক প্রয়োজনীয় বিশ্বস্ত সূত্রের ভিত্তিতে নিম্নোক্ত শর্তসমূহের যেকোনো একটি পূরণ করবেন তারা উল্লেখযোগ্য বলে বিবেচিত হবেন। এসকল শর্তের কোনোটি পূরণ না করেও একজন একাডেমিক WP:BIO বা অন্য কোনো উল্লেখযোগ্যতার শর্ত পূরণের কারণে উল্লেখযোগ্য হতে পারেন। একাডেমিক সম্পর্কিত নিবন্ধের যোগ্যতা যাচাইযোগ্য হবে। এসকল শর্ত প্রয়োগের পূর্বে নিচে উল্লেখিত সাধারণ টীকা এবং নির্দিষ্ট টীকা দেখুন।

১. ব্যক্তির গবেষণা তার গবেষণাক্ষেত্রে উল্লেখযোগ্য প্রভাব সৃষ্টি করেছে এবং স্বাধীন বিশ্বস্ত সূত্রের মাধ্যমে বিস্তারিত ব্যাখ্যা করা হয়েছে।
২. ব্যক্তি জাতীয় বা আন্তর্জাতিক পর্যায়ে অত্যন্ত সম্মানিত কোনো একাডেমিক পুরষ্কার বা সম্মাননা অর্জন করেছেন।
৩. ব্যক্তি বর্তমানে কোনো উচ্চপর্যায়ের সম্মানিত পণ্ডিত সমিতি বা সংগঠনের (যেমন ন্যাশনাল একাডেমি অব সায়েন্স বা রয়েল সোসাইটি) একজন নির্বাচিত সদস্য বা পূর্বে সদস্য ছিলেন অথবা বর্তমানে কোনো উচ্চপর্যায়ের সম্মানিত পণ্ডিত সমিতির (যেমন ইনস্টিটিউট অব ইলেকট্রিক্যাল অ্যান্ড ইলেকট্রনিক্স ইঞ্জিনিয়ার্স) একজন ফেলো বা পূর্বে ফেলো ছিলেন।
৪. ব্যক্তির গবেষণা কর্ম উচ্চ শিক্ষার ক্ষেত্রে গুরুত্বপূর্ণ প্রভাব সৃষ্টি করেছে এবং যথেষ্ট সংখ্যক শিক্ষাপ্রতিষ্ঠানে প্রভাব ফেলেছে।
৫. ব্যক্তি প্রধান কোনো উচ্চশিক্ষা এবং গবেষণা প্রতিষ্ঠানে "নামকৃত চেয়ার" বা "বিশেষ অধ্যাপক" পদে নিয়োগপ্রাপ্ত হন বা পূর্বে হয়ে থাকেন। নামকৃত চেয়ার সাধারণত থাকে না এমন দেশের ক্ষেত্রে সমপর্যায়ের পদ ধর্তব্য হবে।
৬. ব্যক্তি কোনো প্রধান একাডেমিক প্রতিষ্ঠান বা প্রধান একাডেমিক সমিতির সর্বো‌চ্চ পদে নির্বাচিত বা নিয়োগপ্রাপ্ত হয়ে থাকেন।
৭. ব্যক্তি তার একাডেমিক ক্ষেত্রের বাইরে যথেষ্ঠ প্রভাব ফেলেন।
৮. ব্যক্তি তার বিষয়ের উপর প্রকাশিত কোনো প্রধান, সুপরিচিত একাডেমিক জার্নালের প্রধান সম্পাদক হন বা পূর্বে হয়ে থাকেন।
৯. ব্যক্তি সাহিত্য (যেমন লেখক বা কবি) অথবা চারুকলার (যেমন গায়ক, সুরকার, শিল্পী) ক্ষেত্রে নিয়োজিত হন এবং সেক্ষেত্রে প্রযোজ্য উল্লেখযোগ্যতার শর্ত (যেমন WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC) পূরণ করেন।

General notes

  • An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. For instance, major awards listed must be confirmed, claims of impact in the field need to be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, library holdings, etc. (see below for specific notes), and so on. However, once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.
  • The criteria above are sometimes summed up in an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?
  • Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.

Specific criteria notes

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

  • See also notes to Criterion 2, some of which apply to Criterion 1 as well.
  • The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.
    • To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books.
    • In some disciplines there are review publications that review virtually all refereed publications in that discipline. For example, in mathematics, Mathematical Reviews, also known as MathSciNet, and Zentralblatt MATH fall into that category. The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1. However, the content of the review and any evaluative comments made there may be used for that purpose.
    • Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries). The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure.
  • Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.
  • The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses.
  • There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others.
  • For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series; awards by notable academic and scholarly societies; honorary degrees; and others. Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose.
  • For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects.
  • Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.
  • Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1.
  • Having a small collaboration distance from a famous or notable academic (e.g., having a small Erdős number) is not, in and of itself, indicative of satisfying Criterion 1.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

  • For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section).
  • Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1.
  • Biographical listings in and awards from vanity press publishers, such as the American Biographical Institute, or from publications incorporating a substantial vanity press element in their business model, such as Marquis Who's Who, do not qualify for satisfying Criterion 2 or for partially satisfying Criterion 1.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

  • For the purposes of Criterion 3, elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient (most newly formed societies fall into that category).

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

  • Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

  • Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments.
  • Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

  • Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Heads of institutes and centers devoted to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 6; their heads may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

  • Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.
  • Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. Books on pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories are generally not covered by this criterion; their authors may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.
  • Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7.

8. The person is or has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

  • Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 8. However, their head editor may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Citation metrics

The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. They are, unfortunately, very expensive: Scopus will be found mostly in university and large college libraries, and Web of Knowledge in major universities. Scopus covers the sciences and the social sciences, but is very incomplete before 1996; Web of Knowledge may cover the sciences back to 1900, the social sciences back to 1956, and the humanities (very incompletely) back to 1975, but only the largest universities can afford the entire set. (Fortunately, additional citation indexes with public access are being developed.) These databases are furthermore incomplete especially for the less developed countries. Additionally, they list citations only from journal articles – citations from articles published in books or other publications are not included. For that reason, these databases should be used with caution for disciplines such as computer science in which conference or other non-journal publication is essential, or humanistic disciplines where book publication is most important. Web of Knowledge provides a free index of highly cited researchers, which may be of some value. In individual scientific fields, MathSciNet, SciFinder Scholar (Chemical Abstracts), and similar disciplinary indexes are also valuable resources, often specifically listing citation counts, but access to them is also not free and usually requires a university computer account.

  • A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Even the journal Science puts articles online only back to 1996. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. For books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by publisher's permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability. In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only.
  • A caution about PubMed: Medline, now usually accessed as part of PubMed, is a well-established broadly based search engine, covering much of biology and all of medicine, published since 1967 and sometimes even earlier. It includes a few journals in medically related clinical subjects, but is not complete in those. Further, not all articles in PubMed are from peer-reviewed journals, as it includes medical news sources of various degrees of quality, including such items in peer-reviewed journals it does cover. It also exhaustively covers letters to the editor and similar material, not all of which is of any significance.
  • A caution about "related articles": In PubMed, and most other databases, "related articles" are not articles that necessarily cite the original; they are articles on the same general topic, usually selected by having title words or citations in common. Some may cite the original (and some clearly do not, for they will have been published before the articles in question). They are useful for finding additional papers on a subject, which is the purpose for which they were designed. The only way to count citations using such a listing in, for example, PubMed, is the tedious method of looking at every one of the related articles published after the article in question, finding its "cited article" display, and check if it is there. (Some PubMed records do not list cited articles, for a variety of reasons.) Nor will such a listing necessarily include all the citations. – Help for "Related articles" feature
  • Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others.
  • For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied.
  • A report from the association of European computer science departments lists ten bullet points for evaluation of computer science research, two of which emphasize the importance of non-journal publication and one of which specifically cautions against the use of Web of Science: Meyer, Bertrand; Choppy, Christine; Staunstrup, Jørgen; van Leeuwen, Jan (২০০৯), "Research Evaluation for Computer Science", Communications of the ACM, 52 (4): 31–34, ডিওআই:10.1145/1498765.1498780 . Instead, it recommends Google scholar or Citeseer for this field.

Notes

  1. WP:GNG অনুযায়ী: "একটি বিষয় নিবন্ধের মান উত্তীর্ণ হবে যদি (১) এটি নিম্নোক্ত উল্লেখযোগ্যতার সাধারণ মানদন্ড "বা ডানপাশে বক্সে তালিকাভুক্ত বিষয়ভিত্তিক নীতিমালার শর্ত পূরণ করে" যার মধ্যে এই নথিটিও অন্তর্ভুক্ত "এবং (২) এটি উইকিপিডিয়া কী নয় নীতিমালার সাথে অসঙ্গতিপূর্ণ না হয়।"