Note from the Editor-in-Chief: Diversity of subject areas and the longstanding issue of evaluation and promotion of faculty members in the humanities and arts

Faculty members and researchers are among the most important knowledge workers in the science and technology system. Therefore, the correct evaluation of their activities in the form of regulations such as gradation, promotion, top researcher, model professor, and the like, has always been of great importance. These knowledge workers, in addition to providing opportunities for the development and advancement of the higher education system and creating the necessary conditions for the development and scientific and cultural dynamism of society, turn the wheel of science and technology by presenting their valuable scientific and technological achievements, and they are the main leaders of science and technology development.
However, each faculty member and researcher to achieve their ultimate goal, which is to participate in the development of science and technology, is faced with certain requirements and approaches that severely affect his methods and work frameworks. Among these requirements, we can mention various characteristics such as research-oriented or teaching-research-oriented type of the faculty member's activity and other such cases that directly affect his achievement of the set goals. Meanwhile, the "thematic and specialized field of activity" also creates special requirements for each specialized field, and most of all, it affects faculty members' activities. In other words, since each scientific field faces its own requirements based on its missions, so it inevitably uses its specialized tools and methods to participate in the development of science and technology; therefore, evaluating these activities is one of the most important issues and challenges in evaluating the performance of faculty members.
Despite the extensive research that has been done in recent years to identify, explain and introduce differences between approaches, requirements, and scientific behaviors in different fields of science and technology, it is no longer a secret that the problems, challenges, and requirements in the experimental fields and Engineering is completely different from the requirements of the humanities, social sciences, and arts which focus on other dimensions of science and technology. Undoubtedly, the existence of these varieties affects the type of activities as well as the attitude of faculty members and researchers in various fields towards each other. In the presence of such differences, it cannot be expected that the evaluation of activity, performance, productivity, and promotion of faculty members and researchers in different fields of science and technology will be done with the same methods, criteria, and indicators and without considering their specific issues and requirements.


As mentioned earlier, so far many arguments have been presented in the form of scientific research to explain the differences between the fields of science and its various dimensions. In addition, the need to take these differences into account in evaluations of different domains has been emphasized in related texts and documents. In many researches, the existing differences in different fields have been explained and introduced to the scientific community from dimensions such as different existential philosophies, tools, methods, scientific and citation behaviors, and many other categories. Scientific evidence indicates that to a large extent, differences between fields have been considered and emphasized even in the channels of publishing research results such as "scientific journals" and also in the channels of evaluating and indexing of scientific publications such as "specialized and citation indexes". Examples include databases such as JCR and Scimago, which assess and evaluate scientific journals by their subject areas; because judging the status of the journal, regardless of the subject area, does not provide a clear reality. Similarly, many evaluation criteria of the journal published in scientometrics and presented in databases such as JCR, Scimago, and WoS, or other valid citation and specialized databases and indexes, only have meaning and application in the form of different subject categories and regardless of the subject area, it loses its original concept and place. These examples are just small examples of the vast evidence that points to the need to consider the differences between the components of different subject areas when evaluating them. Meanwhile, the evaluation of the scientific record of researchers and faculty members cannot be an exception to this rule; because the research and educational activities of this knowledge group have been expanded in a wide range of subject areas. Therefore, in the process of evaluations related to the promotion of faculty members, which is also one of the most effective types of evaluations, not only can the existing facts about the diversity and breadth of the subject matter of faculty members not be ignored, but also it is possible to evaluate their performances and activities according to their thematic and specialized contexts by creating appropriate frameworks, criteria, and indicators that take these differences, and then to judge their promotion and scientific productivity.
In the meantime, the development of a promotion regulation that can provide the possibility of evaluating the activities of faculty members based on the thematic context of their activities, in accordance with the requirements and ultimate goals of each subject area, is not a suggestion, but a fundamental necessity. In such a regulation, it is necessary to develop criteria and evaluation indicators in accordance with the conditions, requirements, and specialized characteristics of each scientific field and to be used in the process of promoting faculty members. On the other hand, explaining the professional requirements of the faculty members to enter the promotion process is another priority that needs to be explained in the professional promotion regulations; because the backgrounds and prerequisites for entering the upgrade process are different in various areas. In this case, it can be expected that the promotion regulations will be able to act as an effective and guiding tool and put faculty members and researchers in the right direction of participation for the balanced development of the country's science and technology system in accordance with the requirements and missions of their fields.
Despite the sporadic efforts that have been made so far to improve the scientific evaluation processes of faculty members and researchers in accordance with their fields of expertise, the existing facts indicate that the evaluation of these knowledge workers in processes such as promotion is still based on a set of criteria and indicators. It is done with one tool, regardless of their professional and specialized requirements. This is while that the reform of faculty members' evaluation processes and criteria, according to their areas of expertise, should be such that by explaining the differences between the fields of humanities and arts and other fields, can be finally reflected in the regulations and evaluation processes and promotion of faculty members; And also lead the researchers and the thinkers of these fields to their real position as much as possible. Adopting such a process in evaluation can pave the way for more effective movement of researchers in specific fields, especially in the humanities and arts, to achieve the ultimate goals of their core areas, which are to deepen, target, and think of ways to develop science and technology and further influence it. Undoubtedly, many issues need to be addressed along the way. Issues such as what the most important diversities are that differentiate the promotion of faculty members in the fields of humanities from other fields; What the most important considerations, criteria, and indicators are that can take into account the differences between the humanities and other fields in the promotion process, and finally, whether these considerations, criteria, and indicators are the same in all fields of humanities, which is one of the most important concerns. There are those questions in the field that should be given appropriate answers.