Digital Academic Capital (DAC) Index

Q1. What is your current academic rank?

Q2. What is your primary disciplinary field?

Q3. What type of higher education institution do you work in?

Q4. How many years have you worked in UAE higher education?

Google Scholar

Q5. I actively use or update my Google Scholar profile.

ResearchGate / Academia.edu

Q6. I actively use or update my academic networking profile.

LinkedIn

Q7. I use LinkedIn for academic or professional communication.

Social Media

Q8. I use social media platforms such as X/Twitter or other platforms to disseminate academic or research-related content.

Institutional Repository

Q9. I use my institution's research repository to share or manage scholarly outputs.

Research Dissemination

Q10. I regularly share my publications, research findings, or academic achievements through digital platforms.

Academic Networking

Q11. I use digital platforms to communicate with researchers and academic communities.

Research Collaboration

Q12. I use digital platforms to establish or develop research collaborations.

Academic Metrics

Q13. I regularly monitor my citations, downloads, views, followers, or other academic visibility indicators.

Q14. Digital platforms have increased the visibility of my academic work.

Q15. My online academic profile influences how other researchers discover my work.

Q16. Digital dissemination allows my research to reach audiences beyond my immediate academic discipline.

Q17. Online academic visibility contributes to my professional reputation.

Q18. Digital engagement has helped me establish academic collaborations.

Q19. Digital platforms have increased opportunities to communicate my research to policymakers, practitioners, or the public.

Q20. Academic visibility is increasingly influenced by digital platforms and social media.

Q21. Digital academic visibility should be considered a legitimate component of academic capital.

Q22. Digital engagement provides additional evidence of academic contribution beyond traditional publication metrics.

Q23. Digital academic activities can contribute to measurable research impact.

Q24. Digital scholarly networks can enhance an academic's professional opportunities.

Q25. Digital Academic Capital should complement rather than replace traditional academic metrics.

Q26. The criteria used to calculate a Digital Academic Capital Index should be publicly available.

Q27. The weighting assigned to different DAC indicators should be clearly explained.

Q28. Algorithms used to calculate digital academic metrics should be transparent.

Q29. Researchers should be able to understand how their DAC score is calculated.

Q30. The methodology used to calculate DAC should be consistent and replicable.

Q31. A DAC Index can provide a meaningful indication of academic visibility.

Q32. A DAC Index can provide useful information about scholarly engagement.

Q33. Digital metrics can complement citation-based indicators when assessing research impact.

Q34. A multidimensional DAC Index could provide a more comprehensive assessment than a single metric such as the h-index.

Q35. Digital academic metrics may favor researchers in STEM disciplines.

Q36. Digital academic metrics may disadvantage researchers in Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences.

Q37. Digital academic metrics may disadvantage researchers whose primary scholarly communication is conducted in languages other than English.

Q38. Early-career researchers may be disadvantaged because they have had less time to develop digital visibility.

Q39. Senior academics may have greater advantages in accumulating Digital Academic Capital.

Q40. DAC measurement should account for differences between academic disciplines.

Q41. DAC measurement should account for academic career stage.

Q42. DAC measurement should consider differences in research cultures across disciplines.

Q43. My institution encourages academics to maintain an active digital academic presence.

Q44. My institution recognizes digital dissemination as part of academic contribution.

Q45. Digital visibility is becoming increasingly relevant to academic promotion.

Q46. Digital academic engagement should be considered in promotion and career-development decisions.

Q47. Universities should provide training in responsible digital scholarly communication.

Q48. Universities should establish clear policies governing the use of digital academic metrics.

Q49. Academic evaluation systems should combine traditional bibliometrics with digital academic indicators.

Q50. Digital academic contribution should be formally recognized within appropriate institutional evaluation frameworks.

Q51. Maintaining digital academic profiles increases my academic workload.

Q52. Monitoring academic metrics creates additional professional pressure.

Q53. Academics increasingly feel pressure to promote their research online.

Q54. Building a digital academic profile can resemble personal branding or marketing.

Q55. Digital visibility may influence how academics perceive their professional identity.

Q56. Excessive emphasis on online visibility could encourage academics to prioritize visibility over research quality.

Q57. Universities should recognize the time required for meaningful digital scholarly communication as academic work.

Q58. Generative AI is changing how academics communicate and disseminate research.

Q59. AI tools can increase the efficiency of academic content production.

Q60. AI-assisted tools can increase the digital visibility of academic research.

Q61. AI-generated academic content creates risks concerning research integrity.

Q62. AI may increase inequality between academics with different levels of technological expertise.

Q63. Algorithmic platforms may influence which academics and research outputs become visible.

Q64. AI-assisted academic visibility should be transparently identified.

Q65. Universities should establish guidelines for the responsible use of AI in academic communication.

Q66. AI-generated or AI-assisted activity should not automatically be treated as evidence of scholarly quality.

Q67. International academic metrics do not always adequately reflect the priorities of UAE higher education.

Q68. UAE-specific cultural factors should be considered when evaluating digital academic influence.

Q69. Arabic-language scholarly communication should be appropriately represented in digital academic evaluation.

Q70. Contributions to UAE society and national priorities should be considered alongside international citation metrics.

Q71. Digital academic evaluation should recognize collaboration with government, industry, and community organizations.

Q72. The UAE provides a distinctive environment for developing a context-sensitive Digital Academic Capital framework.

Q73. The UAE higher education context requires a balance between international academic standards and local priorities.

Q74. I would trust a transparent and independently validated DAC Index as a supplementary academic metric.

Q75. A multidimensional DAC Index could provide useful information for universities.

Q76. I would support the use of DAC as a supplementary indicator in academic evaluation.

Q77. DAC should never be used as the sole basis for promotion or tenure decisions.

Q78. The DAC Index should be periodically reviewed and validated as digital platforms and AI technologies evolve.

Q79. Digital Academic Capital will become increasingly important in higher education.

Q80. A UAE-specific DAC Index could provide a more contextually appropriate approach to measuring digital academic influence.

What do you consider to be the greatest benefit of incorporating Digital Academic Capital metrics into higher education evaluation?

What are your primary concerns regarding the use of digital platforms, algorithmic academic indices, and AI in academic evaluation?

What UAE-specific factors should be considered when developing a Digital Academic Capital Index?

What recommendations would you make to universities or policymakers regarding the responsible use of digital academic metrics?

Please provide any additional comments regarding academic influencers, digital scholarly visibility, Digital Academic Capital, AI, or the future of academic evaluation.