Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Ethics in Research01:56

Ethics in Research

26.3K
Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound.
26.3K
The Scientific Method01:32

The Scientific Method

275.6K
The scientific method is a detailed, empirical problem-solving process used by biologists and other scientists. This iterative approach involves formulating a question based on observation, developing a testable potential explanation for the observation (called a hypothesis), making and testing predictions based on the hypothesis, and using the findings to create new hypotheses and predictions.
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...
275.6K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Is the Vermiform Appendix A "Safe House?": A Preliminary Examination of the Appendix Microbiome.

Shock (Augusta, Ga.)·2026
Same author

Cancer Prevention and Control.

Primary care·2026
Same author

A review on the utility of sensitivity analysis in trauma research: Methods and challenges from recent trauma studies.

European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society·2025
Same author

Survival impact of second primary cutaneous and non-cutaneous melanoma in melanoma survivors.

Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV·2025
Same author

Enrollment in Children's Oncology Group's clinical trials: population-based linkage with the National Childhood Cancer Registry.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute·2025
Same author

Feasibility of Multi-Institutional Data Collection for Medication Prior Authorization in Pediatric Oncology.

JCO oncology practice·2025
Same journal

Ten-year outcomes from the Columbia-Bassett program: a model for strengthening the underserved health workforce.

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges·2026
Same journal

Artificial intelligence teaching assistants: a scalable solution for supporting struggling medical students.

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges·2026
Same journal

MDCU MedUMORE: a national digital platform for equitable and lifelong medical education in Thailand and beyond.

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges·2026
Same journal

The Minority Ophthalmology Mentoring Program: A Model for Increasing Diversity in Surgical Specialties.

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges·2026
Same journal

Toward a global ecosystem for health professions education: harnessing open educational resources and generative AI with shared governance.

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges·2026
Same journal

Associations of marital status with well-being and career intentions among medical residents: a national survey in Japan.

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 12, 2026

Global and Current Research Trends of Single-Cell Sequencing in Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study
07:50

Global and Current Research Trends of Single-Cell Sequencing in Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study

Published on: April 18, 2025

1.2K

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

Madhu Mazumdar1, Shari Messinger, Dianne M Finkelstein

  • 1M. 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

Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges
|May 21, 2015
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Traditional faculty evaluations undervalue team scientists. A new framework assesses collective contributions in scholarship, teaching, and service, promoting equitable recognition for collaborative scientific innovation.

More Related Videos

A Quantitative Fitness Analysis Workflow
11:39

A Quantitative Fitness Analysis Workflow

Published on: August 13, 2012

15.1K
The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups
14:14

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

6.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 12, 2026

Global and Current Research Trends of Single-Cell Sequencing in Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study
07:50

Global and Current Research Trends of Single-Cell Sequencing in Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study

Published on: April 18, 2025

1.2K
A Quantitative Fitness Analysis Workflow
11:39

A Quantitative Fitness Analysis Workflow

Published on: August 13, 2012

15.1K
The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups
14:14

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

6.5K

Area of Science:

  • Academic Medicine
  • Scientific Collaboration
  • Faculty Evaluation

Background:

  • Traditional faculty evaluation hinges on individual metrics like publication authorship and grant funding.
  • Increasingly, scientific innovation relies on collective creativity, which current systems fail to adequately capture or value.
  • This disparity risks undervaluing the contributions of team scientists.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose a flexible framework for evaluating team scientists.
  • To outline methods for documenting contributions in team-based scholarship, education, and service.
  • To advocate for revised evaluation criteria that recognize collaborative scientific endeavors.

Main Methods:

  • Development of a framework incorporating quantitative and qualitative assessments for team scientists.
  • Illustration using biostatisticians, with generalizability to other scientific disciplines.
  • Recommendations for institutional promotion committees, department chairs, and evaluators.

Main Results:

  • The proposed framework offers a structured approach to assessing team scientists' diverse contributions.
  • It emphasizes the need for substantial weight to be given to team-based scholarship and specialized activities.
  • The approach is adaptable across various scientific disciplines.

Conclusions:

  • Current evaluation systems devalue the essential contributions of team scientists to scientific innovation.
  • Implementing a new framework with well-articulated criteria and robust data collection mechanisms is crucial.
  • Equitable assessment is necessary to prevent the continued undervaluation of collaborative scientific efforts.