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

Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) Key Function Committee of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1302-1308
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume90
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015

Fingerprint

Research
Authorship
Education
Creativity
Organized Financing
Publications
Teaching
Research Personnel
Weights and Measures
grant
creativity
education
promotion
innovation
evaluation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) Key Function Committee of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium (2015). Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research: A Proposed Framework. Academic Medicine, 90(10), 1302-1308. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000759

Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research : A Proposed Framework. / Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) Key Function Committee of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 10, 01.10.2015, p. 1302-1308.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) Key Function Committee of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium 2015, 'Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research: A Proposed Framework', Academic Medicine, vol. 90, no. 10, pp. 1302-1308. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000759
Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) Key Function Committee of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium. Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research: A Proposed Framework. Academic Medicine. 2015 Oct 1;90(10):1302-1308. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000759
Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) Key Function Committee of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium. / Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research : A Proposed Framework. In: Academic Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 90, No. 10. pp. 1302-1308.
@article{f9c54d8c7d4a44efb7bd79e6e6ecba06,
title = "Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research: A Proposed Framework",
abstract = "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.",
author = "{Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) Key Function Committee of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium} and Madhu Mazumdar and Shari Messinger and Finkelstein, {Dianne M.} and Goldberg, {Judith D.} and Lindsell, {Christopher J.} and Morton, {Sally C.} and Pollock, {Brad H.} and Rahbar, {Mohammad H.} and Welty, {Leah J.} and Parker, {Robert A.} and Arlene Ash and Rickey Carter and Elizabeth Delong and Erin Fox and Patrick Heagerty and Elizabeth Kopras and Maurizio Macaluso and Mayo, {Matthew S.} and Robert Oster and Nietert, {Paul J.} and Sowmya Rao and Nawar Shara and Heidi Spratt and Yu Chang and Blank, {Arthur E.} and Tim Carey",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0000000000000759",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "90",
pages = "1302--1308",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research

T2 - A Proposed Framework

AU - Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) Key Function Committee of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium

AU - Mazumdar, Madhu

AU - Messinger, Shari

AU - Finkelstein, Dianne M.

AU - Goldberg, Judith D.

AU - Lindsell, Christopher J.

AU - Morton, Sally C.

AU - Pollock, Brad H.

AU - Rahbar, Mohammad H.

AU - Welty, Leah J.

AU - Parker, Robert A.

AU - Ash, Arlene

AU - Carter, Rickey

AU - Delong, Elizabeth

AU - Fox, Erin

AU - Heagerty, Patrick

AU - Kopras, Elizabeth

AU - Macaluso, Maurizio

AU - Mayo, Matthew S.

AU - Oster, Robert

AU - Nietert, Paul J.

AU - Rao, Sowmya

AU - Shara, Nawar

AU - Spratt, Heidi

AU - Chang, Yu

AU - Blank, Arthur E.

AU - Carey, Tim

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84957587656&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84957587656&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000759

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000759

M3 - Article

C2 - 25993282

AN - SCOPUS:84957587656

VL - 90

SP - 1302

EP - 1308

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 10

ER -