![](/img/s/w/swxkpqee.png)
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 78
Proposed
Framework
for Evaluating
Collaborative
Academics
A recent publication puts
forward a simple framework
to appropriately recognize
and review academic
researchers participating in
collaborative research or team
science. Aligned with the
pillars of the academic model,
the framework combined
qualitative and quantitative
assessment in the areas
of education and service,
stature and accomplishment,
and urges the collection of
evaluative data. Assessment
of the following scientic
activities is suggested: design,
implementation, analysis, and
contributions to publications.
In addition, the framework
encourages assessment
through other more creative
approaches, including
input from lead investigator
collaborators, teaching, input
into grant applications, and
commitments such as journal
clubs (Mazumdar, Messinger
et al. 2015).
• Identify early on in your scientic relationship
those who will be responsible for answering
questions and responding to outside
inquiries about various scientic aspects of
the project.
• In public presentations, identify team
members and explicitly acknowledge their
contributions to the research endeavor.
• Appropriately attribute all people
who contribute to writing, performing
experiments, or provide intellectual input.
The formation of highly productive, integrative
research teams has outpaced institutional
mechanisms that support, review, recognize,
and reward individuals who contribute to these
collaborations. For research teams to ourish,
there must be paradigm shifts for both scientists
working in teams and the organizations that
evaluate their work. Appropriate recognition and
reward of team science is critical for promoting
the success of existing teams as well as for
nurturing new ones. At NIH, there are several
examples of changes that have been made to
help shift the perception that recognition and
reward for team science projects are lacking.
Most notably, in 2006, the NIH modied its
intramural tenure evaluation guidelines to
include recognition for participation in team
science. The guidelines indicate that substantial
impact of independent pursuits, as well as
those characterized as team science, will
qualify an individual for recognition for tenure.
Another NIH effort recognizing the importance
of collaboration in 2007 was permitting R01
applications to be submitted by multiple PIs.