Sticky Wicket 783

An occasional column, in which Mole, Caveman and other troglodytes involved in science emerge to share their views on various aspects of life-science research. Messages for Caveman and other contributors can be left at [email protected]. Any correspondence may be published in forthcoming issues. Greatest hits factor (I think that’s what it was). List my best publications and use an online Oh, woe is me. I was having a perfectly (and apparently costly, but I don’t know) good day, doing perfectly good things, service to tell me how often each one when I was asked a perfectly simple was cited. Count the maximum number question, and I found out that I’m of publications with the maximum clueless. Because it turns out that I don’t number of citations for that maximum know my or my H factor (or perhaps mode), and generate a curve or my scientific factoid quotient (okay, I relating these to the average citations per made up that one), and I don’t know how publication for the three months around to find them. Somehow, while I wasn’t the time that each publication appeared. looking, my life’s work, studying Somehow shoe size (European scale) biomedical phenomena with my and average calorie intake figured in. wonderful colleagues and reporting on Apparently, I’m very HIP – or maybe our progress in the professional not. literature, ceased to be. At least from the perspective of those who want to Once, many years ago, I was involved evaluate said life’s work. I need to reduce in a site visit. This is a scientific outing my contributions to a number, and I don’t of a rather unique type: a number of know how. I feel like the hapless fly at scientists from different institutions the end of The Fly – not the big one but descended on a small group of the little one lost in the spider’s web. individuals at another institution, who Actually, what was his impact factor? had had the audacity to ask for money to support their work, and it was our Some of my colleagues have kindly job as the site visitors to make a offered to help with calculating my HIP recommendation one way or another. 784 Journal of Cell Science 119 (5)

As I recall, this particular site visit was and promotion, and tenure. And therein early, and the paying of the rent in a cold place at a cold time of year, lies the problem. continues until attrition of the seniors and the snow was piled up well above sets in. Without any way to ‘score’ head-high. But the chilliness in the Oh, tenure. The word itself has a texture, contributions objectively, the seniors room was even worse, as we struggled an almost chocolate quality (or will take from the juniors, and the great to find things we actually liked in the substitute anything you personally find wheel will turn. proposed program of research. But delicious). My friends in the world of what I remember with the clarity of a business find the entire concept of tenure Enter citations, impact factors and the clear winter day was one of our fellow utterly alien. “Why”, they say, “do you calculus of achievement. Two reviewers distributing his calculations think you deserve a job for life? And candidates for the same tenure position of the reviewees’ ‘numerical values’ why would you want to work at a place (oh yes, we expect you to compete for based on a simple summation of the that gives out these sorts of jobs?” And them), one who has not published numbers of times their publications they are right, you know. Because tenure particularly well, but has paid adoring had been cited. To our credit, I think, doesn’t only apply to you (oh, rapture), allegiance to the chairman of the we not only tore up these calculations but also to others (oh, ick). You may department, and the other who has made but also threatened to send our earn and deserve (so to speak) your real contributions, publications that colleague out into the blizzard if he tenure, but you’re going to have to put have had impact, despite there being no brought up such dehumanizing algebra up with the invertebrate in the next dues paid to the higher-ups. When again. office for all of eternity – or at least until objective criteria are applied, the latter retirement. A special hell for academic candidate might actually have a chance But the last laugh was on us, I fear. Now, scientists, just one floor up from the one and, in applying such criteria (to a in our more enlightened times, we reserved for journal editors. point), the entire system might move up routinely employ algorithms to convert a a notch in terms of productivity and body of scientific achievement to a Tenure once had a real purpose, and accountability. And this goes deeper. number, and then compare that number probably still does, in some fields. The My dear friend James (not his real against other numbers to reach basic idea was that, as an intellectual, name, but it could be) was fortunate to conclusions that affect others’ lives and you are constrained by your academic receive a rather large grant when he was happiness. How did we get here? How community, prevented from doing a rather new faculty member at a rather did we allow a set of calculations based things that are, well, out there. But once big university, whereupon a rather slimy on mechanized data accrual to supersede you’ve established that you are a solid, senior faculty member (sorry, that isn’t (or at least hold place with) personal level-headed, serious academic, then an appropriate description: he was assessment of a colleague’s contributions maybe it’s a good thing to take chances extremely slimy) convinced the to our joint endeavour? When did we and do things that are out there. administration that such a rather large start valuing numbers of citations more grant for a rather small fry should be

Journal of Cell Science than the content of the work? Which is all fine, if you don’t have to get supervised by said senior slime-lord. grants. Once we bring peer-reviewed And so it would have been, but for The rise of the impact factor, as it applies funding into the picture, tenure is a bit objective scoring: James pointed out to to people (as in, “See that guy? Bad outmoded, at least for biomedical the administration that his total citations haircut, huge impact factor”) came about research. It’s been a long time since a (despite being junior) were more than as part of a needed transition. There was renegade scientist, working without peer tenfold those of the senior icky-person, a time in the distant past when all faculty support (or outside funding), generated and the administration relented. Well appointments and promotions were done breakthroughs that justified their tenure. done James, and well done objective at a personal level, relying entirely on I can think of a few, but that was long scoring. recommendations from colleagues near ago, and Dr Frankenstein doesn’t count. and far (and this practice continues), but, Nevertheless, when we’re young and But it just feels wrong, this tallying up ultimately, there was no way to gauge the hungry we strive for tenure, we yearn for of factors and citations. Where is the candidate beyond these opinions – it, and we’d do, well, not anything, but science? When does the actual work except to read their work. We could look a lot to get it. come to the fore? And even worse, this at the publications, read them, and system has urged many of our evaluate whether this was someone we And as I say, therein lies the problem. colleagues to churn out papers without wished to hire or promote – or ultimately When things like promotion and tenure regard to actual content, with the single- tenure. This reading was a lot of work, are strictly subjective, this invites minded goal of generating a score rather and as the numbers of papers being potential abuse. Junior faculty are forced than a body of significant work. We produced increased, so did the work of into positions where they work mostly to know these colleagues, these reading them. And if we were going to the credit of their seniors, who then reap gunslingers, who put notches on their put them into a useful context, we had to the (sometimes substantial) rewards, in gun barrels for each publication and read other papers as well, while of return for which the juniors are don’t remember what they had been course continuing to do our own research tantalized with the promise of lifelong trying to accomplish, if anything, other and write our own papers. And we did it, employment. In some organizations, than the whole set of notches. I didn’t as best we could, or faked it if we including the academic systems of some get into this business to do that, and I couldn’t, because this was about hiring nations, this promise starts remarkably hope you didn’t either, hombre. 785

What’s the alternative? How can we that equals or outshines someone who (which, as we know, can be deceptive) have the best of both worlds: the has produced a plethora of fodder? And but in terms of how others have impartial evaluation of our work how can we do this without relying on a followed up on the work. Most of all, together with the personal assessment of computer to tell us? we can read these few papers and get what we’ve actually accomplished. a feeling for what you’ve done, what Because, let’s face it, we want to be Hey, this is Mole you’re talking to. Of contributions you have really made, objectively, rigorously evaluated for course I have a suggestion, and it’s what sort of scientist you are. what we’ve accomplished and we want very simple. Put out your Greatest Hits our colleagues to be too. compilation, and be judged on this. Evaluate me based on my best few Pop musicians do it all the time. publications in the last few years, or Those who make the decisions can’t Depending on your experience and the throughout my career, and let me pick read every paper we’ve each written, and sort of thing you’re being evaluated for which ones I’m most proud of. Let me we can’t ask others to do that either – – be it job, grant or award – you should say why they matter. Don’t reduce me it’s just too much work in too many be asked to compile some number to a number. Because I’m not. Even if disparate areas (the areas that (three, five, not more than ten) of your it’s a really huge number. And let’s collectively make up a vibrant most notable works, with an emphasis face it, we all want people to be department). And we might miss on the most recent. Everyone applying playing our greatest hits for years to something important or fall prey to the for the same thing will be asked to do come. It’s what I want to be same sort of number crunching that this as well. You can briefly annotate remembered for. we’re trying to avoid. How do we level them, explain why these are your best the playing field so that someone who contributions. And you can say how Mole has published a few great papers is you think they’ve impacted on the Journal of Cell Science 119, 783-785 Published by The Company of Biologists 2006 evaluated as having made a contribution field, not in numbers of citations doi:10.1242/jcs.02863

Commentaries

JCS Commentaries highlight and critically discuss recent exciting work that will interest those working

Journal of Cell Science in , molecular biology, genetics and related disciplines. These short reviews are commissioned from leading figures in the field and are subject to rigorous peer-review and in-house editorial appraisal. Each issue of the journal usually contains at least two Commentaries. JCS thus provides readers with more than 50 Commentaries over the year, which cover the complete spectrum of cell science. The following are just some of the Commentaries appearing in JCS over the coming months. Roles of the centrosome Michel Bornens Golgi fragmentation Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz Non-apoptotic functions of caspases Bruce Hay Nuclear actin Pavel Hozak Mechanotransduction Chris Chen Yeast apoptosis Marie Hardwick Dorsal closure Daniel Kiehart Dynamin Mark McNiven Cargo-selective adaptors Linton Traub p120 catenin Albert Reynolds Filopodia Richard Cheney Non-centrosomal MT networks Greg Gundersen Cancer stem cells Max Wicha p53 outputs Karen Vousden Spir proteins R. Dyche Mullins Endomembrane evolution Joel Dacks

Although we discourage submission of unsolicited Commentaries to the journal, ideas for future articles – in the form of a short proposal and some key references – are welcome and should be sent to the Executive Editor at the address below. Journal of Cell Science, Bidder Building, 140 Cowley Rd, Cambridge, CB4 0DL, UK E-mail: [email protected]; http://jcs.biologists.org