4.6 Article

Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research: A Proposed Framework

Journal

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
Volume 90, Issue 10, Pages 1302-1308

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000759

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [UL1 TR001450, UL1 TR000445, UL1TR000062, UL1 TR002240, UL1 TR000101, UL1TR000038, UL1 TR002319, UL1TR000071, UL1 TR000071, UL1 TR001422, UL1 TR000062, UL1 TR000038, UL1 TR000005, UL1 TR001417, UL1 TR000077, UL1 TR000001, 2UL1 TR000457-06, UL1TR001117, UL1 TR000149, UL1 TR000165, UL1 TR000371, UL1 TR001102, UL1 TR000423, UL1 TR000135, UL1 TR000457, UL1TR000460, UL1TR000433, UL1 TR000460, UL1 TR001111, UL1 TR000433, UL1TR000371, UL1 TR001120, UL1TR000101] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA016087] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NCRR NIH HHS [UL1 RR025767, UL1 RR031982, UL1RR025767, UL1RR031982, UL1RR024153, UL1 RR024153, UL1RR031975, UL1 RR031975] Funding Source: Medline
  4. PHS HHS [ULT1R000150] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Criteria for evaluating faculty are traditionally based on a triad of scholarship, teaching, and service. Research scholarship is often measured by first or senior authorship on peer-reviewed scientific publications and being principal investigator on extramural grants. Yet scientific innovation increasingly requires collective rather than individual creativity, which traditional measures of achievement were not designed to capture and, thus, devalue. The authors propose a simple, flexible framework for evaluating team scientists that includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments. An approach for documenting contributions of team scientists in team-based scholarship, nontraditional education, and specialized service activities is also outlined. Although biostatisticians are used for illustration, the approach is generalizable to team scientists in other disciplines. The authors offer three key recommendations to members of institutional promotion committees, department chairs, and others evaluating team scientists. First, contributions to team-based scholarship and specialized contributions to education and service need to be assessed and given appropriate and substantial weight. Second, evaluations must be founded on well-articulated criteria for assessing the stature and accomplishments of team scientists. Finally, mechanisms for collecting evaluative data must be developed and implemented at the institutional level. Without these three essentials, contributions of team scientists will continue to be undervalued in the academic environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available