Abstract
The lack of a representative scientific workforce is a challenge being addressed by federal agencies, funding bodies, and research institutes. As organizational units emphasize the work of training, recruiting, retaining, and promoting an inclusive scientific body, issues around bias and metrics appear frequently in the literature. The goal of this manuscript is to introduce some of the most commonly misunderstood areas of bias, and ways to adjust hiring and promotion practices; and to focus on innovative ways to quantify scientific outputs through metrics other than journal impact factors and paper citation numbers. These alternative metrics, or altmetrics, are increasingly reliable predictors of impact for a scientific community that is asked to engage more frequently and more effectively with the public. Additionally, we address discipline-specific concerns around metrics used for hiring and promotion in biosecurity and biosafety, taxonomy, and researchers in government and regulatory roles. We conclude that in the future, societal and scholarly impact will be more closely tied. This is a critical time to ensure scientists are adequately trained and recognized for their contributions as public intellectuals, and supported in this important work.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.