Biology Needs a Modern Assessment System for Professional Productivity

Abstract

Stimulated in large part by the advent of the Internet, research productivity in many academic disciplines has changed dramatically over the last two decades. However, the assessment system that governs professional success has not kept pace, creating a mismatch between modes of scholarly productivity and academic assessment criteria. In this article, we describe the problem and present ideas for solutions. We argue that adjusting assessment criteria to correspond to modern scholarly productivity is essential for the success of individual scientists and of our discipline as a whole. The authors and endorsers of this article commit to a number of actions that constitute steps toward ensuring that all forms of scholarly productivity are credited. The emphasis here is on systematic biology, but we are not alone in experiencing this mismatch between productivity and assessment. An additional goal in this article is to begin a conversation about the problem with colleagues in other subdisciplines of biology.

Natural History Collections: Teaching about Biodiversity Across Time, Space, and Digital Platforms

“…In 2012, the United Nations unveiled an ambitious new global strategy to combat the alarming loss in global biodiversity (United Nations Development Program 2012). Active NHCs provide unique opportunities for research and scholarship (McDade et al 2011) and play a fundamental role in characterizing global diversity and addressing issues related to biodiversity conservation (Daly et al 2012, NIBA 2010, Page et al 2005.…”

Full Issue PDF Volume 38, Issue 2

“…Secrecy in guarding research has been part of scientific culture throughout history, and recent articles exploring the data sharing attitudes find scientists overwhelmingly unwilling to freely share data within and among their own community (Blumenthal et al 1997;Campbell et al 2002;Blumenthal et al 2006;Vogeli et al 2006;Haas 2011;Tenopir et al 2011), where willingness to share data is positively correlated with the ease of extraction and relationship to requestor (Witt et al 2009;Cragin et al 2010). In some sense, curators negate certain issues surrounding resistance to sharing that have to do with expending time and energy to prepare data, but addressing the underlying scientific-professional reward structure that does not reward sharing remains outside their scope of influence (McDade et al 2011). …”

Analytic model for academic research productivity having factors, interactions and implications

“…Most of the growing clamor concerning the proper measurement of academic productivity concerns such selfish measures and applies them only to compare individuals, often for the purpose of allotting promotions and for advising career development. 4 Benefits to the institution, funding agency, contractor, or other constituency (taxpayers, patient advocates, charities, public popularity, economic advancement, etc.) constitute the service.…”