Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure

Area of Science:

• Biomedical Sciences
• Clinical Research
• Life Sciences

Background:

• Current faculty reward systems are misaligned with societal needs and the reproducibility crisis.
• Suboptimal scientific publication quality is linked to flawed assessment methods.

Purpose of the Study:

• To address the misalignment in assessing scientists and research in clinical and life sciences.
• To develop principles for a reformed system of evaluating scientific contributions.

Main Methods:

• Convened a 22-member expert panel workshop with academic leaders, funders, and scientists.
• Conducted a literature review of 22 documents critiquing current scientific assessment systems.
• Extracted perceived problems, unintended consequences, and proposed solutions from the literature.

Main Results:

• Identified key issues within the existing system for assessing scientists.
• Developed six core principles for evaluating scientists and their research.
• Outlined policy implications for redesigning assessment approaches.

Conclusions:

• The proposed principles offer a foundation for best practices in scientist assessment.
• Redesigning assessment approaches is crucial for aligning science with societal needs.
• Improved evaluation methods can address the reproducibility crisis and enhance scientific quality.