Recommended Team Science Criteria for Promotion and Tenure

The criteria we recommend for promotion and tenure are based on four influential publications in the team science field. Mazumdar et al shed light on how contributions to team science can be evaluated [Reference Mazumdar, Messinger and Finkelstein15]. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) provide recommendations for deriving metrics [8]. Stokols et al discuss how to cultivate a receptive environment for implementation of team science promotion and tenure practices [Reference Stokols, Misra, Moser, Hall and Taylor16]. Finally, the JAMA Network journals offer authorship criteria that can be adapted for present purposes [Reference Fontanarosa, Bauchner and Flanagin1]. As reflected in the titles of these publications, criterion development varies according to the purpose of the work. In our opinion, these publications are too complicated to lend themselves readily to the development of simple, clear metrics by a given institution. We have therefore synthesized metrics from the four sources to create a list of 17 criteria to guide both faculty member and evaluation committees in the assessment of individual faculty member contributions to team science. Instead of providing a deep analysis of these references here, we briefly discuss each one and the process through which the criteria were synthesized. This effort fills a gap in the literature of team science and faculty development, as no such list of metrics currently exists.

In the first of the four publications, Mazumdar et al offer recommendations to promotion committees and department chairs for evaluating team scientists [Reference Mazumdar, Messinger and Finkelstein15]. From their experience, they recommend that: 1) contributions to team-based scholarship, education and service need to be assessed and given substantial weight; 2) evaluations should be founded on well-articulated criteria for assessing the stature and accomplishments of team scientists; 3) mechanisms for collecting evaluative data must be developed and implemented at the institutional level requiring a change in policy and systems; and 4) faculty scientific contributions should be assessed as input into the design of research protocols and grant applications; planning, directing, and conducting data analyses; and input into the development of manuscripts. Although Mazumdar and colleagues provide an essential framework for evaluating team-based research, teaching and service, their charts of major, moderate, and minor activities, sample comments, and additional needed information may be too complex for individual faculty, department chairs, reviewers, and rank and tenure committees to consider. They also do not reference the three other publications noted below which add important perspectives on team science promotion criteria.

Second, in their publication, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) recommend good practices and metrics for evaluating team science effectiveness that can be considered in establishing criteria for promotion and tenure [8]. The Academies recommend that leaders of research teams apply specific methods to guide team composition; partner with team-training researchers to create and evaluate professional development opportunities for science teams; and work with universities to create and evaluate science leadership. Additional recommendations include the following: 1) leaders of geographically dispersed science teams and larger groups should provide activities to develop shared knowledge among all participants; 2) universities should collaborate with disciplinary associations to develop principles and criteria for allocating credit for team-based work; 3) Funders should encourage new collaborative models indicating a need for support through the provision of resources; and 4) foundations should require grant applicants for team science-based research to describe collaboration plans and knowledge integration over the life of projects.

In the third publication, Stokols et al present a typology of contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration to serve as a basis for deriving promotion and tenure criteria [Reference Stokols, Misra, Moser, Hall and Taylor16]. Their recommendations include as follows: 1) policies and protocols that support successful collaborations; 2) an organizational climate of sharing information, credit, and decision-making responsibilities; 3) strong network linkages between remote sites and available technical support, and provisions for data security and rapid access; 4) interpersonal ability to adapt flexibly to changing task requirements, effective communication among members to develop shared goals, and respect among team members; and 5) a culture that supports collaboration and fosters a willingness devote substantial effort to transdisciplinary activities, provides preparation for the complexities inherent in this collaboration, and encourages participatory, inclusive and empowering leadership styles.

Finally, the JAMA Network journals authorship criteria can be adapted to include standards for faculty team science contributions to the intellectual content of grant proposals, research activities, publications, and presentations [Reference Fontanarosa, Bauchner and Flanagin1].

Our thesis is that these four seminal sources can be synthesized and distilled to provide a strong foundation for the development of a comprehensive set of team science criteria for promotion and tenure (Table 1). The four references separately highlight the importance of influencing collaboration, measuring team effectiveness, assessing authorship, and evaluating other scientific contributions. Our 17 criteria incorporate suggestions from Mazumdar et al for evaluating team scientists in leadership, service, and academic scholarship including contributions to grants, publications, and research programs. The criteria presented here also include NASEM chapters on team composition and assembly, professional development and education, and leadership in team science. From Stokols et al, our criteria further include social, psychological, and management research on team effectiveness as well as important factors in remote collaborations and community coalitions. Finally, the criteria presented in Table 1 also encompass the JAMA list of eight specific substantial contributions to the intellectual content of a paper. Careful, in-depth analysis of the four sources for similarities, differences, and connections enabled the derivation of seventeen strong criteria that will be useful for inclusion in promotion and tenure decisions that affect practitioners of team science.

Table 1.

Recommended team science criteria for promotion and tenure

The recommended criteria comprise two main categories: Collaboration and Team Effectiveness; and Scientific Contributions. Ten criteria fall into the former category and seven into the latter. The list includes criteria relevant to principal investigator roles such as mobilizing the team, developing goals, fostering respect, sharing credit, providing, and developing leadership, and presenting findings. As another example, several of the criteria are relevant to community-engaged researchers such as mobilizing partners, fostering respect, sharing decision-making, providing inclusion, and developing the collaborative research team.

This hypothetical case illustrates how the team science criteria may be considered in the promotion of an assistant professor active in community-engaged research to associate professor. Some of her portfolio of work is summarized here. In addition to impressive performance in the areas of teaching and service, Dr Scientia has served as co-investigator in grant applications and projects contributing to the conception of research questions and hypotheses. She has performed literature reviews that influenced the direction and impact of grant proposals in a way that clearly made them fundable. She convened community partners to collaborate with the research team and respectfully facilitated the development of shared research goals and pragmatic protocols for survey data collection and privacy protections. In addition to mentoring summer research assistants, Dr Scientia co-chaired regular research meetings with a community partner leader and shared decision-making in adapting the project to changes in the environment. She also served as a reviewing middle coauthor of related manuscripts and led writing endeavors about the community engagement experience. Finally, this team scientist co-presented preliminary findings at local community meetings and presented the results of the projects at national and international scientific conferences, garnering a national reputation for impactful community-engaged research. Through this work, she moved team science and her discipline forward.

Implementing Team Science Criteria in Promotion and Tenure

Promotion and tenure criteria guidelines should define interdisciplinary research with the goal of recognizing and rewarding team science during promotion and tenure processes [Reference Zierler, Posner and Summerside17]. The use of key positions on grants and publications as the primary indicator of research performance, leadership and independence in team science projects should be open, transparent, and standardized [18]. There are a variety of ways in which the recommended team science criteria can be used by stakeholders in the promotion and tenure process. Faculty, department chairs, peer reviewers, and promotion and tenure committees may reflect on this list in evaluating team science contributions. The seventeen criteria can be integrated by university rank and tenure committees into a single master rubric and practical guide. The criteria can also be adapted in the development of questionnaires for team leaders and collaborators to comment on the faculty applicant’s compilation of publications and activities (generally not on a specific publication). Promotion and tenure committees might apply relative weights to the importance of individual criteria that reflect the values of their own institutions for team science productivity. Definitions and descriptions can be added to the criteria. Further, committees might compare these recommendations to their own established team science criteria for promotion and tenure decisions. With input from diverse institutional research leaders, committees might transcend the established practice of giving more weight to first authors and grant principal investigator achievements than to team science contributions in their decisions.

We strongly recommend that each faculty member participating in collaborative research establish a team science portfolio to accompany the curriculum vitae to document team science experiences and accomplishments. As an example, an educator portfolio is a valuable accompaniment to a CV that provides faculty with a way to document scholarly teaching and educational scholarship [Reference Niebuhr, Johnson, Mendias, Rath, Sandor and Scauter19]. The team science portfolio highlights collaborative research with a professional goal statement. If a significant proportion of activities are team science contributions, then the faculty member connects their activities to the specific interdisciplinary research promotion and tenure guidelines [Reference Zierler, Posner and Summerside17]. The proposed team science criteria can then be used to describe success in influencing collaboration and team effectiveness and contributing to the scientific process and products. The faculty member might note specific contributions in a list of the 17 criteria and provide details about the work not apparent in the CV. The portfolio can thus communicate the importance of contributions to science and highlight the work that could not have been accomplished without their expertise added to the team. For the most impactful publications and substantial grants, statements about roles in the research are useful [20].

Mentors, collaborators, and department chairs can comment on the significance of faculty members team-based contributions to research in their applications for promotion and tenure [20]. In particular, the department chair letter should describe team science contributions based on the criteria. External peer reviews might include research collaborators of the faculty to provide a confidential description of the value of their contributions [Reference Zierler, Posner and Summerside17]. Rank and tenure review committees should continually improve methods for evaluation of team science contributions [18]. Application forms and portfolio templates should reflect contributions to team science projects based on the proposed criteria. Finally, faculty should be provided with specific guidelines on how to document team science achievements based on the criteria [Reference McHale, Ranwala, DiazGranados, Bagshaw, Schienke and Blank4].

A university culture supporting team science requires consistency, alignment, and comprehensiveness at all stages of evaluation, from defining expectations in the initial appointment, to preparing individual candidate CV and portfolio, to incorporating team science criteria in rank and tenure evaluations [Reference Klein and Falk-Krzesinski21]. University leadership in creating a culture of collaboration and paths for convergence research is essential to academic translation and innovation goals [Reference Lee and Jabloner22]. Institution leaders should directly address barriers to adopting team science criteria in the promotion and tenure process. Academic units must intentionally cultivate team science [Reference Guise, Winter, Fiore, Regensteiner and Nagel23]. Norms should transcend team hierarchy [Reference Petersen, Pavlidis and Semendeferi3]. Incentives within the promotion and tenure system must be aligned with the expressed value of team science [Reference McHale, Ranwala, DiazGranados, Bagshaw, Schienke and Blank4]. A team science culture should facilitate recruitment and retention of cross-disciplinary researchers.

Resistance to such cultural changes can be expected where there is lack of awareness of the benefits and need for such change, accompanied by insecurity about its potential impact on the academic status quo. Combating such barriers would entail enhancing understanding of how the expansion of the promotion and tenure system is necessary because of the types of problems that science must increasingly address. Furthermore, proponents of such change must educate others about how including team science in the promotion and tenure process benefits the institution in the long run. Researchers who collaborate on larger projects would be more encouraged and therefore experience greater job satisfaction. Adding team science recognition for faculty creates more opportunities and carries great potential for enhancing diversity, inclusion, and equity in academia.

Needs for Research in Team Science in Promotion and Tenure

While the value of team science is increasingly recognized, research on criteria that can be used to inform rank and tenure decisions is limited. Such research is needed in order to generate stakeholder agreement to advance recognition and reward streams for team science. Further study should target the evaluation of policies and procedures for reviewing investigator promotion based on team science criteria. Focus groups consisting of team scientists, rank and tenure committee members, and other stakeholders are recommended to gain consensus on the recommended criteria. Further research should be initiated in order to promote better understanding of the contextual dynamics of particular fields and types of institutions as well as the effectiveness of changes in rank and tenure processes [Reference Klein and Falk-Krzesinski21]. Evaluations of the influence of published recommendations on promotion and tenure policies are also needed. Inquiry is into the application of alternative metrics such as H-indices on team science and the impact of collaborative publications on the broader scientific community would greatly enhance understanding of the vital importance of teamwork in contemporary academic scholarship.

This report and the proposed research advance the science of team science by highlighting an important issue that has been invisible relative to other developments in the field, specifically that of lack of recognition of valuable faculty team science contributions to health research. The set of evaluation criteria tailored to university promotion committees are proposed as a starting point toward remediating this deficit and initiating further study.