Mazumdar Madhu, Messinger Shari, Finkelstein Dianne M, Goldberg Judith D, Lindsell Christopher J, Morton Sally C, Pollock Brad H, Rahbar Mohammad H, Welty Leah J, Parker Robert A
M. Mazumdar was professor and chief, Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Weill Cornell Medical College, and director, Research Design and Biostatistics Core, Clinical and Translational Sciences Center, New York, New York, at the time this article was written. She is currently director, Institute of Healthcare Delivery Science, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, New York.S. Messinger is associate professor, Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, and director, Research Design and Biostatistics Core, Miami Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Miami, Florida.D.M. Finkelstein is professor of medicine (biostatistics), Harvard Medical School, and Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, and chief, Biostatistics Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.J.D. Goldberg is professor of biostatistics, Departments of Population Health and Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, and director, Study Design, Biostatistics, and Clinical Research Ethics Program, NYU-HHC Clinical and Translational Science Institute, New York, New York.C.J. Lindsell is professor and vice chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, associate dean for clinical research, College of Medicine, and codirector, Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design, Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.S.C. Morton is professor and chair, Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, and director, Comparative Effectiveness Research Core, Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.B.H. Pollock was professor and director, Division of Clinical and Translational Sciences, Department of Internal Medicine, professor, Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design, and director, Informatics, Institute for t
Acad Med. 2015 Oct;90(10):1302-8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000759.
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.
传统上，评估教员的标准基于学术成就、教学和服务这三个方面。科研学术成就通常通过同行评审科学出版物上的第一作者或资深作者身份以及校外资助的首席研究员身份来衡量。然而，科学创新越来越需要集体创造力而非个人创造力，而传统的成就衡量标准并非为此设计，因此会贬低其价值。作者提出了一个简单、灵活的框架来评估团队科学家，该框架包括定量和定性评估。还概述了一种记录团队科学家在基于团队的学术研究、非传统教育和专业服务活动中的贡献的方法。虽然以生物统计学家为例进行说明，但该方法可推广到其他学科的团队科学家。作者向机构晋升委员会成员、系主任和其他评估团队科学家的人员提出三项关键建议。第一，需要评估对基于团队的学术研究的贡献以及对教育和服务的特殊贡献，并给予适当且充分的权重。第二，评估必须基于明确阐述的评估团队科学家地位和成就的标准。最后，必须在机构层面制定并实施收集评估数据的机制。没有这三个要素，团队科学家的贡献在学术环境中将继续被低估。
