Team Science

The School of Medicine (SOM) Taskforce on Promotion and Tenure (P&T) emphasized the need to recognize and appreciate the academic achievements of researchers who carry out team science. The team scientist gives expertise and skills to research projects that expands the scope, deepens the analyses, and increases significance and impact of the results that would have been absent without their participation. This section provides definitions and guidelines for the Team scientist to document excellence in research for faculty advancement. The information is specifically relevant for faculty on the tenure-eligible Academic Investigator, Clinical Educator, or Clinical Investigator tracks or the tenure-ineligible Research Faculty-Independent track. While all SOM members are encouraged to pursue research activities, faculty on these tracks may choose or are required to demonstrate excellence in research for promotion or tenure.

Often, the expertise and skills of the team scientist are not readily amenable to the model of the independent researcher as a principal investigator (PI), but rather are best directed to projects that require collaborative efforts of several investigators of different expertise. In assessments for faculty advancement, the research achievements of a team scientist may be misunderstood or under-appreciated, especially because they are held to the same expectations as for independent investigators. This confusion has resulted in inconsistent evaluations of research achievements for team scientists. In general, promotion and tenure committees look for documented evidence of the specific expertise and prominent roles played by the faculty member in their research as indicated by external funding as sole principal investigator (PI) or one of multiple principal investigators (MPI in the NIH parlance, co-PI for NSF, DOD, and others)¹ and publications as senior author. They also look for evidence of the faculty member’s reputation based on their scholarship. The typical indicators are invitations to write reviews in the area of expertise, to speak at conferences or seminars, to serve on grant review panels and editorial boards, and to participate in collaborations. While these activities are good indicators of excellence in research for independent researchers, they may not serve team scientists well because they are likely in the role of co-investigator² for most of their funding, and middle author on publications even though they make critical contributions to the work.

The team scientist is expected to have the following characteristics (taken from Meurer et al. J. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2022, doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.523). The promotion or tenure dossier is expected to provide evidence for most or all of these points.

I) Faculty member makes significant and important contributions to the scientific process and products of team projects.

Indicators of significant contributions are:

1. named as “key personnel” on grants and co-authorship with important contributions of publications on the Team’s project
2. makes significant contributions to the conception of research questions, hypotheses, and specific aims
3. participates in literature review input in the design of research protocols for institutional review board
4. gathers and utilizes data from participants
5. may contribute or be the main contributor for biostatistical study design, data analysis, and interpretation
6. makes significant input in manuscript writing and editing and earns co-authorship of peer-reviewed publications
7. presents research findings at local, regional, national, or international meetings
8. recognition as an expert and a contributor to the field as indicated by invitations to present research talks at other institutions and national/international conferences, invitations to visiting professorships, invitations to organize topical workshops or national/international conferences, invitations to author review articles or book chapters, awards, and other national/international recognition for contributions to the field, or is named as a contributor to intellectual property ownership, patents, and licensing

II) Faculty member must demonstrate influence in the field, collaboration and team effectiveness as indicated by:

1. acting as co-investigator² on multiple grants and as PI, MPI, co-PI¹, or Program or Co-Project Leader on at least one active  federal or national foundation-funded grant
2. mobilizing and collaboratively convening the research team and community partners
3. sharing knowledge or collaborative technologies in dispersed or large teams
4. developing consensus around shared research goals
5. fostering respect among team members
6. building network linkages with data security, privacy, and easy access
7. sharing information, credit, or decision-making responsibilities
8. providing participatory, inclusive, and empowering leadership
9. adapting flexibly to changing tasks
10. contributing to professional and leadership development of research team members

Consideration as a team scientist is relevant for promotion or tenure steps on the Academic Investigator, Clinician Educator, Clinician Investigator, and Research Faculty- Independent tracks. To meet criteria for excellence in research as a team scientist, the following requirements must be met:

I) The faculty member must declare that promotion or the award of tenure relies upon excellence in research, and that the faculty member qualifies as a team scientist. The department P&T review and chair’s nomination for promotion or tenure must acknowledge the faculty member as a team scientist.

II) The faculty member must identify the team(s) with which the faculty member performs research and the leaders (principal investigators) of the team and projects in which the faculty member is involved.

III) Extramural funding:

1. The team scientist is expected to be co-investigator² on multiple grants (such as R, P, or U-level NIH grants). A majority of the faculty member’s salary support and percent effort coming from extramural funding must come from team science projects.
2. The team scientist is expected to be PI, MPI or co-PI¹ on at least one current federal- or national foundation-funded grant. Alternatively, the team scientist may be a project or core leader in program or cooperative grants.

IV) The P&T dossier must document the faculty member’s expertise, contributions, and impact in the specific field(s) relevant to the team research.

Indicators of expertise are:

1. Publications in the field as first or senior author from any time as a faculty member.
2. Letters from at least three faculty-level team members (at or above the proposed rank), attesting to the faculty member’s role in the team projects, specific skills and expertise the faculty member brings to the team, and specific examples of scientific contributions to Team projects leading to publications and external funding. The letter writers should be able to represent the range of the fields of research in which the faculty member participates. The letter writers should be able to explain the faculty member’s unique and essential contributions to the team project including descriptions of how the faculty member generates synergy, creates innovative research networks, and/or institutional opportunities beyond the expected product of individual, independent research. These letters are not solicited by the faculty member; they should be listed as external non-independent (or internal, if applicable) on the candidate’s referees list. For additional information, please visit the Referee Requirements page.
3. The faculty member should include names of former mentors, advisors, or collaborators³ on the P&T referee list, to evaluate faculty member’s expertise.
4. The faculty member must be recognized by external independent referees as an expert and a contributor in the field.

The team scientist will be evaluated by the SOM P&T committee according to the above criteria. While each case will be considered individually, expectations will be consistent with the track and rank criteria. For example, on the Academic Investigator track, for associate professor with term, “substantial and critical contributions in team science projects”; for the award of tenure, “significant and critical contributions in team science projects recognized by peers with substantial funded effort on external grants”; and for full professor, “continued substantial and critical contributions in team science projects.”

The team scientist will be distinguished from (1) Independent Investigator collaborative efforts, or (2) Research Faculty – Support.

(1) Independent investigators often participate in multiple collaborations which may be a significant portion of their research program, however, to qualify for excellence in research, they are expected to have substantial external funding as PI, MPI or co-PI¹ and publications as senior author that result from their funded research.

(2) For Research Faculty – Support, the promotion candidate must document excellence in research, but in the context of leading service cores or supporting research programs led by the PI(s). They are expected to have a job description and percent effort consistent with their support role.

A bioinformatics expert who is sought after to provide the critical bioinformatics element to several projects and is consistently named in grants and publications may qualify for excellence in research as a team scientist.

A researcher who provides only data or an experimental tool or model for another person’s or group’s research is inadequate evidence for excellence in research as a team scientist.

(1) The principal investigator, multiple principal investigator (MPI; for NIH grants) or co-PI (for grants other than NIH) is defined as “the person(s) responsible for the preparation, conduct, and administration of a research grant, cooperative agreement, contract, or other sponsored project. A project leader for program project or cooperative agreements (NIH P or U type grants, respectively) manage subprojects and are generally considered equivalent to being PI of an independent grant.

(2) Co-investigator is defined as a senior or key investigator involved in a funded project who does not have the overall responsibility and authority of the Principal Investigator(s).

(3) Collaborator is defined as playing an active role in the research with expertise that complements the PI’s, while a consultant provides advice or services for the research, for example, supplying software, providing technical assistance or training, or setting up instrumentation.