BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions,
research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Biology Needs a Modern Assessment System for Professional Productivity
Author(s) :Lucinda A. McDade, David R. Maddison, Robert Guralnick, Heather A. Piwowar, Mary
Liz Jameson, Kristofer M. Helgen, Patrick S. Herendeen, Andrew Hill and Morgan L. Vis
Source: BioScience, 61(8):619-625. 2011.
Published By: American Institute of Biological Sciences
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1525/bio.2011.61.8.8
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological,
and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books
published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance
of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial
inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

Professional Biologist
www.biosciencemag.org August 2011 / Vol. 61 No. 8s"IO3CIENCE
Biology Needs a Modern Assessment
System for Professional Productivity
LUCINDA A. MCDADE, DAVID R. MADDISON, ROBERT GURALNICK, HEATHER A. PIWOWAR, MARY LIZ JAMESON,
KRISTOFER M. HELGEN, PATRICK S. HERENDEEN, ANDREW HILL, AND MORGAN L. VIS
Stimulated in large part by the advent of the Internet, research productivity in many academic disciplines has changed dramatically over the last
two decades. However, the assessment system that governs professional success has not kept pace, creating a mismatch between modes of scholarly
productivity and academic assessment criteria. In this article, we describe the problem and present ideas for solutions. We argue that adjusting
assessment criteria to correspond to modern scholarly productivity is essential for the success of individual scientists and of our discipline as a whole.
The authors and endorsers of this article commit to a number of actions that constitute steps toward ensuring that all forms of scholarly productivity
are credited. The emphasis here is on systematic biology, but we are not alone in experiencing this mismatch between productivity and assessment.
An additional goal in this article is to begin a conversation about the problem with colleagues in other subdisciplines of biology.
Keywords: academic assessment, systematic biology, scientific productivity, digital objects, curation of natural history collections
species conservation, invasive species, infectious diseases,
climate change), and access to these data empowers research
and discovery across a broad disciplinary spectrum.
Systematic biologists also contribute in other nontradi-
tional ways common to all sciences. Many now maintain Web
sites on which research results are reported; many also create
and maintain other digital resources (e.g., databases, online
keys, identification aids) and teaching aids. Some write soft-
ware or devise laboratory tools that are extensively used by a
diversity of scientists and educators. Many produce scholarly
contributions that appear only online (e.g., the new gen-
eration of “Red List” assessments of species status led by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN]).
Some develop interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research
programs that bind heretofore disparate fields of science (e.g.,
proteomics, genomics, bioinformatics, systematics). These
kinds of research productivity are increasingly contributed by
the rising generation of students and postdoctoral scholars,
as well as by more established professionals.
However, somewhat remarkably, systematic biologists con-
tinue to compete for jobs and strive toward tenure and promo-
tion in academia largely under the model for professional credit
used during the last century. This model counts peer-reviewed
publications and calculates “value” using some function of the
number of publications, the quality of the journals in which
those publications appear, and the impact of the publications
on the field as measured by citation indices. These metrics have
some merit, but we believe that our academic assessment sys-
tem requires urgent updating to reflect the nature of systematic
biologists’ contributions to biodiversity research in the twenty-
first century. It is clear that achieving success in our discipline
The nature of research productivity in many disciplines has changed dramatically over the last two decades and will
continue to evolve. However, change in the modes and ven-
ues of scholarly productivity comes with the attendant risk
of a mismatch between the nature of this productivity and
the assessment and reward structures that govern profes-
sional success. At a recent series of four workshops on the
future of systematics and biodiversity research, participants
discussed the remarkable mismatch between professional
productivity in systematics—both traditionally and in the
twenty-first century—and the prevailing academic assess-
ment system. Here, we describe the problem and also pres-
ent some potential solutions. We know that the systematics
community is not alone in experiencing this mismatch, and
we invite our colleagues in other subdisciplines of the bio-
logical sciences to join us in seeking solutions.
Peer-reviewed publications are a major form of produc-
tivity in systematics, but systematic biologists increasingly
contribute knowledge in nontraditional ways as well. Sys-
tematists contribute actively to the Tree of Life Web Project
(http://tolweb.org), the Encyclopedia of Life (http://eol.org),
and other Web-based compendia of systematic knowledge.
They also submit data to central repositories from which
data can be retrieved and used by others; these include
GenBank (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank) and Morphbank
(http://morphbank.net), as well as distributed biodiversity
database initiatives (e.g., the Global Biodiversity Information
Facility [GBIF], www.gbif.org), among other types of initia-
tives. Frequently, data are made available even before they
are formally published. These biodiversity data provide the
critical factual basis for addressing societal challenges (e.g.,
BioScience 61: 619–625. ISSN 0006-3568, electronic ISSN 1525-3244. © 2011 by American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. Request
permission to photocopy or reproduce article content at the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions Web site at www.ucpressjournals.com/
reprintinfo.asp. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.8.8