↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research

Overview of attention for article published in Academic medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research
Published in
Academic medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1097/acm.0000000000000759
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

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.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 11%
Professor 10 10%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 29 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Social Sciences 14 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Computer Science 4 4%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 32 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2015.
All research outputs
#10,130,593
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Academic medicine
#3,344
of 7,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,955
of 311,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic medicine
#47
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.