Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

Convened October 28–29, 2025

Rethinking Researcher Assessment and Incentives at U.S. Academic Institutions
Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

Current mechanisms for assessing researcher output and productivity in U.S. academic institutions rely heavily on traditional indicators of success, such as grant funding and publication metrics. Although these measures capture important aspects of scholarly activity, they often fail to adequately recognize the full range of behaviors essential to fostering a trustworthy, innovative, and publicly responsive research enterprise. The limitations of existing researcher assessment systems have become more visible during the current moment of heightened attention to public confidence in institutions of higher education, particularly in light of changes to federal funding.

Many researchers already engage in work that advances scientific innovation, integrity, accessibility, and transparency for societal impact; however, these contributions are frequently undervalued within the prevailing evaluation structures. To address this disconnect, a planning committee drawn from members of the Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust (the Strategic Council) and the New Voices in Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine program (New Voices) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) convened a workshop on October 28 and 29, 2025 to explore avenues for broadening the current criteria for researcher assessment and incentives within U.S. academic institutions beyond traditional research outputs such as grants, publications, and citation counts. The workshop focused on expanding researcher assessment of and incentives for activities that contribute broadly to U.S. research and scientific leadership. The planning committee’s composition ensured representation from both senior administrators and emerging researchers currently navigating academic reward systems.

The workshop was held both online and in person at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C. Attendees included university administrators, faculty, and staff; researchers; former government employees; philanthropic leaders; and science policy professionals. Several individuals from outside of the United States participated virtually.¹

This convening built on earlier efforts by the Board on Higher Education and Workforce in 2019 and 2021 to examine promotion and tenure (P&T) policies before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. During the 2025 workshop, speakers reviewed progress made in the intervening years by presenting institutional case studies in which expanded researcher assessment criteria are currently being piloted or have been adopted. Through panels,

__________________

flash talks, and targeted breakout sessions, a broad range of approaches shaping the landscape of researcher assessment and incentives were explored, including:

• Engaging the community in research and addressing local, societal, and regulatory needs;
• Conducting research-centered mentorship for early career researchers;
• Fostering team science and interdisciplinary collaborations;
• Contributing to open access publishing and data sharing;
• Enhancing research transparency and strengthening research integrity; and
• Facilitating technology and knowledge transfer.

WELCOME AND OVERVIEW OF DAY ONE

Workshop co-chair Julie Risien, Oregon State University, opened the workshop by situating the discussion within a long-standing national conversation on researcher assessment and incentives. Risien noted that previous reform attempts consistently highlighted a crucial issue: that the existing system of reward and advancement is a barrier to achieving a multitude of recommended actions intended to advance science, technology, engineering, and medicine.

Reforms were much more of “a topic of conversation than they were of action” when this topic was last studied. Risien provided three key takeaways from prior National Academies discussions on researcher assessment to frame the current workshop:

1. As posited by Laurie Leshin, California Institute of Technology, in 2019 and again in 2021, institutions of higher education need “to ‘broaden the bar’ of assessment to include meaningful practices to meet the needs of society and demonstrate the espoused values of our institutions.”
2. Progress does not need to wait for complete agreement on the metrics that determine success. Future reform environments may need to embrace greater complexity and nuance.
3. “Our policies, and most importantly, our practices [for researcher assessment], did not, in many cases, meet the moment” during the sudden disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the events of 2020 did catalyze “some important changes within institutions.”

Building on this history, Risien challenged participants to move past relitigating what is already widely understood to be broken. Instead, participants were charged with engaging at a granular level and emphasizing opportunities for improvement. She urged attention to the largely unrecognized value of work in transdisciplinary spaces, where researchers collaborate across disciplines and sectors, as well as with communities, to address societal challenges. Such work, she noted, requires researchers to challenge norms and to take on considerable professional, social, and personal risk. “I want us to consider who is left behind,” she said, and “what talents and positive impacts remain unrealized because the risks of challenging those norms are just too high.” She concluded her remarks with a charge to imagine “a future in which the academy is prepared to meet the moment every time.”

Workshop co-chair Mitul Luhar, University of Southern California and a member of the New Voices program, framed the workshop as a necessary response to profound disruptions to the U.S. science and technology landscape in 2025, noting that this discussion is especially timely at a moment when federal research funding priorities are changing rapidly and public trust in scientific institutions is low. He emphasized that traditional assessment criteria “only recognize and reward a subset of the terrific work that is being done at U.S. academic institutions.” Luhar stressed that while creating civic impact is the stated goal of almost every college or university, work supporting this goal does not always yield traditional, easily-measured outputs and is often discounted. The purpose of the workshop, Luhar emphasized, was not simply to highlight promising initiatives, but also to “collectively identify best practices for moving forward, […and to gather the] best ideas on how assessment reform may be implemented at scale so that we can lay the groundwork for durable systemic change.”

Strategic Council co-chair Marcia McNutt, National Academy of Sciences, underscored the Strategic Council’s core purpose to strengthen the excellence, trustworthiness, and integrity of the research enterprise. She observed that institutions expect scientists “to work to become more trustworthy, but in no way are we rewarding them for that.” This misalignment led the National Academy of Sciences to insert the objective “to catalyze the transformation of the professional reward system” into its 2024–2028 Strategic Plan. McNutt noted a general “growing awareness that current promotion and tenure decisions are far too focused on publications in high-impact journals.” At the same time, institutions often overlook essential contributions such as mentoring, promoting diversity, communicating with the public, and improving the research process. McNutt emphasized that credibility in reform efforts requires partnership with those most affected by existing systems, citing the impetus to include New Voices program members in the planning of the workshop. The field cannot eschew traditional metrics entirely, she concluded; “it’s not as though none of those things matter, but they are not the only things that should matter.”

Alison Boland-Reeves, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, welcomed participants by emphasizing the importance of early and mid-career professionals’ perspectives in this work. She noted that many New Voices members are already engaged in impactful research activities, such as community-engaged research, mentoring, and building interdisciplinary research teams. As a result, they have seen firsthand how difficult it can be to secure recognition for contributions that do not align with traditional assessment models. She concluded by remarking that “what makes this workshop especially valuable is the composition of the committee leading it. The planning committee was established to intentionally bring together senior and mid-career leaders to look at researcher assessment from both perspectives, those shaping the system and those navigating it.”

Speaking virtually, Harvey Fineberg, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, echoed previous comments about the misalignment between what institutions say they value and what they formally reward. If faculty are expected to lead interdisciplinary teams, mentor the next generation, engage the public, improve research practices, and champion open science, “then it’s incumbent on us to try to align the criteria we use to review, judge, promote, and reward our faculty according to what we hope they will have contributed to the discipline, to the academy, and to the community and world.”

Finally, Liesl Folks, University of Arizona and workshop planning committee member, introduced the workshop’s ground rules with a forward-looking framing that asked “attendees [to] emphasize opportunities for improvement rather than lamenting and relitigating the current system.” The goal, she said, was to identify innovative approaches already being piloted within departments and institutions and to determine which effective practices may be ready to scale. Folks encouraged participants to emphasize opportunity over grievance and “progress over perfection.”

OPENING KEYNOTE

Leshin delivered the opening keynote, drawing on her experience chairing both the 2019 and 2021 National Academies workshops on promotion, tenure, and incentives. She focused her remarks on the need for institutions to align incentives and values.

Leshin began by recounting her time as president of Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), a school that champions project-based learning with students undertaking innovative work at the intersection of technology and society around the world. Despite this ethos, Leshin observed an apparent disconnect between what WPI claimed to value and how it assessed and rewarded researcher impact. This systemic misalignment was immediately quantified on her first day, when a faculty climate survey revealed the number of women satisfied with the promotion process: zero.

To tackle this mismatch, WPI undertook a four-year redesign of its P&T criteria. The new criteria required scholarly contributions to have an external impact beyond the institution and recognized the full continuum of scholarship in assessing impact.

This broadened spectrum included the:²

• Scholarship of Discovery (basic research)

__________________

• Scholarship of Integration (transdisciplinary work)
• Scholarship of Application or Practice (translation of basic research)
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
• Scholarship of Engagement (community-based work)

Leshin emphasized that the goal was not to lower standards but to “broaden the bar” for high-quality scholarship, a phrase that later became emblematic of the reform. WPI defined scholarship recognition based on three criteria; it must be

• public,
• amenable to critical appraisal, and
• shareable within the scholarly community.

Instead of tightening metrics, WPI allowed candidates to show external impact through varied evidence, including “scholarly impact beyond the institution in ways that we haven’t thought of yet.” Leshin highlighted the need for flexible, diverse approaches to demonstrating scholarly work.

Leshin contextualized the current state of researcher assessment within the broader historical context of Vannevar Bush’s Science, the Endless Frontier. She noted that while the report made an extraordinarily strong case for basic research and its contributions to the scientific enterprise, “there are times these days where [Leshin] wonders whether it was almost too effective.” The foundational work marked the point at which research publications became “the coin of the realm,” and institutions were built around the construct of basic research. While basic research is essential, she noted that it is necessary, but not sufficient, to address the world’s most pressing challenges.

As funding leans towards philanthropy and industry, Leshin believes that institutions will focus more on impacting humanity and driving economic growth. She mused, “Our task is much broader than remaking research assessment. It’s remaking research itself. It’s really redefining scholarly work.” Leshin framed this disruption as a “great moment for dramatic change […] this is about us being who we say we want to be.”

One of the recurring themes of Leshin’s address was that change is not only possible but already underway. She referred to this as “Laurie’s first law: which is if it happened, it must be possible.” She cited multiple examples of change happening at present:

• In 2024, Northern Illinois University expanded its definition of valued work in P&T to include transdisciplinary, community-engaged, and public-oriented scholarship.
• In 2024, the University at Buffalo updated its P&T policies to include civic engagement as research and to broaden the pool of external reviewers.
• West Virginia University recognizes entrepreneurship activities and artifacts, like business plans, as evaluable documents.
• The University of Iowa clearly defines criteria to assess excellence in community-engaged scholarship across three domains: process, product, and impact.
• Purdue University encourages researcher assessment in traditional research, teaching and learning, and engagement, emphasizing reciprocal partnerships and impactful work.
• The University of Oklahoma outlined eight characteristics of excellence in community-engaged scholarship, including preparation, rigor, community engagement, impactful results, effective dissemination, and ethical responsibility.

Returning to WPI, Leshin shared statistical evidence that the reform is working. Comparing the three years before and after the policy change, “three times more faculty were promoted” overall, and the “number of women promoted increased sixfold.” She highlighted that the reform deliberately addressed the “zero” satisfaction rate, noting that 55 percent of promotions in the later period were women.

Leshin concluded by acknowledging the difficulty of this work: “You know, the tough news is change is desperately needed, and it’s hard, and it takes time. But the great news is that change is possible and it’s happening and it can work.” She closed by returning to the principle that guided her reforms and that framed her keynote:

“Instead of valuing what we measure, let’s measure what we value.”

CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF RESEARCHER ASSESSMENT AND ACADEMIC ADVANCEMENT AT U.S. INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Nick Wigginton, Johns Hopkins University, moderated the first panel, which examined initiatives that are shaping the evolving landscape of researcher assessment across publishing, funding, and academic institutions.

Angela Bednarek, Pew Charitable Trusts, representing the Impact Funders Forum, shared how research funders are rethinking assessment to close the gap between research and societal outcomes. Funders recognize that complex social problems require strategies that extend beyond conventional grantmaking. To this end, Bednarek emphasized the importance of replacing assumptions with evidence, noting that simply “arming researchers with better communication tools” is insufficient. Instead, the evidence indicates that addressing these challenges effectively requires investment in engaged, transdisciplinary, co-produced research, alongside the translation and mobilization of research, and the creation of protected time for building relationships and interdisciplinary teams. She stated that this approach necessitates focusing on how research is used, identifying demands for research, and then working backwards to determine the necessary activities. Bednarek noted that increasing the research system’s responsiveness to societal needs also will enhance institutions’ resilience to shifts in funding priorities. Finally, she observed that while individual scientists generally enjoy public trust, confidence in institutions is considerably weaker. However, community-engaged and participatory research both fosters trust and generates knowledge that is more relevant and actionable for the public, underscoring the need to account for these types of research in assessment and incentive frameworks.

Giovanna Lima, Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), explained the organization’s efforts to improve research assessment across disciplines. DORA launched in 2013 and issued 18 recommendations, urging institutions to look beyond journal metrics and consider the value and impact of all research outputs. Lima highlighted DORA’s collaboration with researchers, universities, publishers, funders, and metrics providers; its collection of case studies; and the ReformScape observatory on P&T practices. She introduced DORA’s recently published Practical Guide to Implementing Responsible Research Assessment at Research Performing Organizations, which draws on global community knowledge and emphasizes four key moments for change: hiring, unit assessment, grants and awards, and research communication. Lima encouraged attendees to act today: whether by signing onto DORA, asking institutions to revise their assessment practices, or sharing successful reform examples for others to replicate.

Kaia Motter, Springer Nature–North America, summarized the publisher’s commitment to research assessment reform by promoting the open sharing of research outputs such as code, data, and preprints; requiring detailed author contribution statements to broaden credit and authorship; and providing article-level metrics that reflect diverse engagement. Motter cited a Springer Nature report produced in collaboration with Overton, in addition to bespoke reporting from Nature Research Intelligence, showing that the United States leads in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)-related publications as well as policy and patent citations. However, many U.S. researchers feel underrecognized for work that has societal and economic impact.³ These results highlight the workshop’s aim: as Motter noted, “the reality of how researchers are evaluated [...] does not match the reality of their actual contributions.”

David Rosowsky, Arizona State University, contextualized his remarks within the pressures facing institutions: federal funding interruptions, unresolved indirect cost disputes, and recent politicization of science leading to “institutional paralysis.” With admiration, he noted the emerging entrepreneurial energy among early career faculty amid financial stress. He described how many are launching companies and pursuing private funding, warning institutions that this change “is happening fast, and we are going to disenfranchise and lose an entire generation of researchers if we don’t pick up the pace” on reforming researcher assessment. He stressed that universities must reset expectations for faculty to incentivize entrepreneurship, ingenuity, and risky ideas by doing two things: building scaffolding systems to support

__________________

research and recognizing the value of a larger variety of researcher contributions through P&T.

Keith Yamamoto, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), based his remarks on his work as co-chair of the National Academies’ Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Scholarship. He described the Roundtable’s efforts to explore new publishing models, more flexible research communication systems, and reforms to hiring and promotion standards that better support high-risk, high-reward research.

Turning to the current state of researcher assessment, Yamamoto argued that it is “dominated by careerism, professional advancement, and success measured by publication counts, journal prestige, first and last authorship, etc.,” but that “none of those things have anything to do with the quality of the research.” He argued that such metrics combat the innate curiosity that initially draws people to science by harshly penalizing failure. However, he observed that it is still possible to circumvent this culture and create opportunities for success that allow the freedom to fail. Yamamoto called for a transition away from conventional quantitative metrics towards criteria that “celebrate risk as a pathway to significant discovery.” He stressed that institutional reforms must be matched by parallel changes among funders to ensure that researchers can pursue bold, paradigm-shifting ideas.

Wigginton initiated the Q&A portion of the panel by asking panelists if the current government shutdown and ongoing funding crisis create opportunities for advancing responsible research assessment reform. Lima responded that “a crisis asks for efficiency,” and that responsible research assessment could create a more efficient system that recognizes all outputs and reduces “research waste.” Yamamoto noted that several executive directors at different science agencies have criticized National Institutes of Health (NIH) “research of being conservative and not strongly innovative.” He suggested that the research enterprise could capitalize on this criticism by seizing the moment to update NIH peer review in a way that would seek out, celebrate, and reward research on bold, impactful, and risky ideas.

Audience member Jeffrey Alexander, RTI International, asked if reforming faculty assessment requires fundamentally rethinking doctoral student training and postdoctoral evaluation, given that faculty are “great at self-replicating” through their mentees. Rosowsky agreed emphatically, noting that the “self-replication thing” is part of the problem and that early career researchers need the space to pursue diverse paths. Lima affirmed this, stating that institutions have a duty to prepare early career researchers for careers beyond academia, and that expectations for researchers have changed profoundly. Strategic Council co-chair France Córdova, Science Philanthropy Alliance, added that philanthropies are also thinking about this question and working to fund new models that partner with NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to integrate industry experiences into graduate research fellowships.

Strategic Council member Steven Goodman, Stanford University, then mentioned the elephant in the room: time. He asked how P&T committees can conduct deeper qualitative reviews if they move away from counting papers. Yamamoto suggested changing the composition of P&T committees to include “small groups of experts” who are familiar with the subject matter and can speak to its quality, rather than relying on broad university representation.

STRATEGIES FOR INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN RESEARCHER ASSESSMENT

Tuba Özkan-Haller, Oregon State University, moderated the next panel, which explored cultural barriers and practical strategies for institutional reform in researcher assessment. Özkan-Haller noted the limitations of attempting to change one institution at a time, since P&T evaluations depend on reviewers from many institutions. She recommended that the National Academies serve as a convening body to facilitate coordinated efforts, guiding the research community toward broad cultural shifts through a comprehensive, unified approach rather than reforming assessment at each institution individually.

Elyse Aurbach, Michigan State University, opened her remarks by describing three levels at which sustained commitment is needed to ensure that institutional

change is effected in a comprehensive way (i.e., across cultural, structural, and policy domains). Referencing a 2014 National Academies workshop on Building Institutional Capacity for Engaged Research, she described these three levels as the individual (academic and community partners), the institutional (universities and other research-performing organizations), and the meta-network (funders, publishers, and professional societies).

In discussing resources for change at the institutional level, Aurbach highlighted the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities’ Modernizing Scholarship for the Public Good framework, which defines eight strategic areas for advancing publicly engaged research and scholarship across diverse institutional types, including R1 research institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and land-grant universities. She highlighted three core strategic areas and provided exemplars of actions in each:

1. First, Aurbach noted that policy change alone is insufficient without investments in institutional structures and networks. For example, she cited Duke University’s new Center for Community-Engaged Scholarship, which aims to better connect research with its Division of Community Affairs.
2. Second, Aurbach highlighted the importance of building individual capacity. At the University of Michigan, she and colleagues created the Public Engagement Faculty Fellowship to expose scholars to various forms of engagement, from museum communication to policy work and participatory research. The program provided a shared framework and community that supported scholars in envisioning and articulating their public impact within their academic journeys.
3. Third, Aurbach underscored the importance of coordination at the meta-network level to incentivize institutions to move together. She referenced the Presidents and Chancellors Council on Public Impact Research convened by the Pew Charitable Trusts as a collective effort among early adopters, which is developing a strategic blueprint outlining major pathways for sector-wide progress.

Aurbach concluded that the need for institutional change and support tools is well established; the challenge is generating the energy for truly activating change. While institutions differ in context, she noted that they can learn from one another and that efforts in engagement, open scholarship, and responsible research assessment share core principles that create opportunities for collective action.

Michael Dougherty, University of Maryland, College Park, focused his remarks on department-level change and the role of individual scientists in restoring public trust. Dougherty shared his own motivation to address data integrity concerns during psychology’s well-known replication crisis. Issues of reproducibility are not unique to any single field, noted Dougherty, and strengthening trust requires scientists to reconsider the day-to-day processes and practices that shape their work.

He described a comprehensive overhaul by his department to ensure consistency across individual faculty members’ academic career trajectories. Hiring was redesigned to emphasize open science, transparency, and societal impact. Merit reviews, P&T criteria, and funding were realigned with departmental values. The department removed reputational metrics like citation counts and impact factors and instead focused on rigor, transparency, and substantive contributions. These changes were made to empower faculty to pursue meaningful questions addressing societal challenges and promoting transparent and reproducible research. Accessibility was given additional emphasis, to encourage work that would better reach communities that can benefit from the research.

Dougherty noted that faculty “want to do the right thing” and respond positively when supported in adopting rigorous practices. However, he cautioned that imagining alternatives to entrenched systems takes time. Socializing new expectations, educating faculty about what is possible, and building shared understanding were essential components of sustaining the transition.

Goodman offered a detailed example of how cultural misalignment can undermine well-designed researcher assessment reforms. He explained that the Stanford School of Medicine, where he works, formally prohibits

the use of bibliometrics in its P&T packages. Candidates are not supposed to cite publication-related statistics, which are removed if present. Instead, senior faculty summaries are required to discuss one or two significant papers. However, this school-level stance is not typically followed by referees or reflected in departmental practice. Some departments continue to rely on bibliometric indicators when determining whom to advance for promotion, even though these metrics are stripped from the final dossier. He noted that no institution-wide effort has examined whether departmental criteria align with school-level principles. Goodman’s example illustrates a central challenge: without cultural alignment, policy reform remains symbolic. If departments and referees continue to treat bibliometrics as core indicators of merit, the impact of the school’s prohibition is limited.

Goodman also described complementary efforts to shift evaluative culture, including Stanford’s annotated Rigor & Reproducibility (R&R) CV and the Rigor and Reproducibility (RaRe) Researcher Awards. The annotated R&R CV offers “a very light touch,” enabling candidates to append brief indicators of openness (e.g., whether code, data, or protocols are publicly available) and include narrative statements about contributions to research rigor, data management, reproducibility checks, and reuse of shared materials. As Goodman put it, “you can’t value it if it’s not visible.” His discussion of the RaRe Researcher Awards noted that submissions showed that many early career investigators often view reproducibility practices not as burdens but as “jet fuel” for their research, comprising “a suite of methods to make their research more impactful and faster” and demonstrably more trustworthy. This supports the argument that faculty need to be rewarded for how they conduct their research, not just where their research is published.

Dominic Packer, Lehigh University, described university-level efforts to reform P&T procedures, an initiative catalyzed in part by receipt of a National Science Foundation Accelerating Research Translation (ART) grant two years ago. The grant commits Lehigh University to pilot measures to value translational work on par with fundamental research and to undertake substantial culture changes to support this shift. Packer explained that the core challenge is achieving alignment across multiple levels of the university, requiring extensive conversations among faculty, departments, colleges, and central administration. While the process is complex, he noted that many of these discussions have been highly productive, driven in part by junior faculty who bring entrepreneurial mindsets and a desire for institutions to recognize a broader range of scholarly contributions. Creating space for these faculty members to pursue new forms of impact, Packer argued, is essential to sustaining reform. He illustrated this cultural tension with the case of a junior faculty member who co-founded a successful startup but had been advised “never to tell” their colleagues because entrepreneurial activity might undermine perceptions of their academic commitment. This faculty member’s subsequent success, including the receipt of a major national scientific award, demonstrates that this type of work does not compromise scholarly standards and that academic institutions can reward ingenuity, risk-taking, and work focused on society.

Shelley Stall, American Geophysical Union (AGU), provided the perspective of meta-networks such as professional societies and their role in enabling culture change. She explained that AGU sees its mission as supporting researchers’ work while also creating conditions that allow new practices to take hold. Stall highlighted the importance of sharing credit, pointing to initiatives such as the Open Science Recognition Prize that elevate team-based approaches and collaborative scholarship. She underscored that credit itself is a construct shaped by institutions, but professional societies can influence how this construct evolves by modeling and rewarding desired behaviors. Given that most societies operate with limited resources, Stall stressed the importance of working collectively across networks. Coordinated action, she noted, allows societies to amplify their influence and offer stronger, more consistent signals about values to guide research and researcher assessment.

Özkan-Haller began the Q&A session by asking panelists to identify the biggest barriers to advancing researcher assessment reform. Goodman answered that institutions remain constrained by the incentives and reward structures of peer universities, as external P&T letters often rely on conventional metrics. This interdependence makes misaligned norms a collective action challenge. Özkan-Haller agreed, stressing that change requires coordinated action across institutions, disciplines, and

professional societies. Aurbach noted that university rankings continue to prioritize bibliometrics, which undermines reform efforts.

Risien asked panelists how they envision assessing quality beyond traditional publications. In response, Aurbach emphasized the need for the research enterprise to more clearly articulate desired impacts, so that logic models can be developed that connect activities to these outcomes. She added that real-world impacts often unfold over years and across multiple contributors, meaning evaluations frequently measure potential rather than immediate effects. Goodman highlighted the importance of holistic assessment, noting that Stanford’s 360° review captures generative behaviors such as mentoring and community building, reflecting the character and influence of scholars beyond their publications. Stall suggested finding ways to “un-entrench the h-index” by building evaluation of data sharing and other open science characteristics into its calculation.

An online question raised concerns about broadening evaluative criteria and creating extra hurdles for researchers to overcome, sometimes called the “five-legged sheep” problem in the Netherlands. Goodman emphasized that leadership must communicate clearly that these new methods of valuing researcher contributions create “all the different ways you can succeed, not the ways you all have to succeed.” Dougherty affirmed that this clarification is explicitly written into his institution’s revised P&T guidelines.

The conversation concluded with reflections on network effects on behavior change, a topic raised by Véronique Kiermer, Public Library of Science (PLOS) and workshop planning committee and Strategic Council member. Goodman clarified that this effect refers to a theory that innovation leading to systemic change often arises from groups on the periphery of networks, who are less constrained than better-connected groups at the center, whose willingness or ability to change can be impeded by those connections. Aurbach countered by noting that building communities of practice, such as the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Presidents and Chancellors Council on Public Impact Research and the Civic Science Fellows program, can reinforce shared motivations and accelerate progress from within the system.

PERSPECTIVES ON EMERGING APPROACHES TO RESEARCHER ASSESSMENT

The final panel of the first day featured a series of flash talks in which speakers shared perspectives and insights on emerging approaches to researcher assessment reform, setting the stage for the corresponding breakout sessions that took place at the conclusion of the flash talks. Insights from these breakout sessions were reported on Day 2.

Engaging the Community in Research and Addressing Local, Societal, and Regulatory Needs

Kate Weber, University of Southern California (USC), presented a flash talk detailing how the USC Dornsife Public Exchange supports community-based participatory research, using extreme heat in Los Angeles (LA) as a key example.⁴ LA County faces extreme heat risks, especially in low-income neighborhoods, but city resources are limited, and expertise is lacking to analyze variables such as heat exposure and tree canopy gaps. Over three years, the Public Exchange assembled a team of over 30 faculty, staff, and student researchers who collaborated with residents, meeting them in their communities to build mapping tools and study pollution-absorbing tree species. Ultimately, the team and its non-profit partners have planted over 1,000 street trees in LA.

Weber described the Public Exchange as crucial university infrastructure that allows researchers to focus on science while the team handles logistics, partnerships, and communications of community-based participatory research projects. This collaboration led to policy changes, $5 million in grants for scientific research, numerous media stories, and the engagement of students and faculty.

Today’s challenges are arriving rapidly and often without warning, underscoring the need for teams that span fields and partnerships to tackle problems collaboratively, Weber observed. She acknowledged the realities of academic incentives, noting “not every researcher wants to do this kind of work, and not every academic’s work is well suited to it, and that is okay, but for those who do, we need to make it easier,” providing support and rewards for those taking on these complex challenges. Many of the researchers who engage in this work are pre-tenure and proceed despite warnings that it could be

__________________

a distraction. Weber proclaimed that “they are responding to the challenges that they see in their community.”

Weber offered three items to take into the breakout discussions, noting that scaling impact requires: (1) acknowledging the time and support needed for community-engaged research, (2) adopting holistic assessment models like the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM), which measures impact beyond grants and bibliometrics, and (3) strengthening inter-university partnerships to tackle complex societal challenges. She concluded by emphasizing that “academics who work on solving public problems are more than researchers. They’re ambassadors. They show what’s possible when expertise meets action, and they remind the world that research done in partnership can change all of our lives for the better.”

Conducting Research-Centered Mentorship for Early Career Researchers

Erin Dolan, University of Georgia, drawing on insights from the 2019 National Academies report The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM, opened her flash talk by pointing out that most researchers learn how to mentor informally, guided by personal experiences and receiving limited feedback, and that mentorship is counted “fairly haphazardly in research assessment.” She noted that effective mentoring is a sustained developmental relationship that provides both career support (sponsoring, coaching, and teaching) and psychosocial support (encouragement and role modeling), requiring deliberate learning and practice. This activity is embedded within a complex ecosystem of individual dyads, departmental practices, and institutional norms.

Dolan shared examples of positive changes throughout the ecosystem to inspire breakout discussions:

• Individual Level: The University of Georgia and many other institutions across the country now offer formal training and certifications for researchers on becoming more effective mentors. Dolan called for further professional development options and more substantial evidence in this area.
• Dyadic Level: Institutions are expanding beyond relying on the mentor-mentee dyad. Examples include the University of Georgia’s GradFIRST program,⁵ which introduces graduate students to strategies for mentoring up and to available resources for both career and psychosocial support, and the use of formative assessment tools to help dyads identify issues and facilitate formal discussion on how to address them.
• Institutional Level: The University of Georgia has begun implementing minimum standards for mentoring. These standards are now required for annual reviews and P&T. Additional policy options may be necessary to allow flexibility across contexts, relationships, and disciplines.

Dolan encouraged mentorship assessment to focus on identifying situations that are harmful and on rewarding excellent work, while cautioning that new policies need better evidence and to avoid additional bureaucratic burden. Ultimately, she stressed that research on mentorship remains limited, underscoring the need for more evidence-based practices tailored to diverse contexts.

Fostering Team Science and Interdisciplinary Collaborations

Deborah DiazGranados, Virginia Commonwealth University, underscored the misalignment between academic incentives and the demands of large-scale, interdisciplinary team science in her flash talk. She shared that today’s complex societal challenges require sustained, collaborative research, yet faculty are often evaluated using metrics designed for solo productivity. This over-reliance on easily-measured outputs rewards individual achievement while penalizing team contributions, interdisciplinary work, and sustained community engagement. DiazGranados advocated for recognizing that the time invested in developing the partnerships necessary to collaborate and innovate is, in itself, valuable and rewardable time. She then emphasized that removing the friction of individual competition can unleash the collective potential to drive meaningful societal impact.

DiazGranados called for a cultural transformation in academia that values scientific citizenship, rigorous mentorship, open-source tools, community engagement, data sharing efforts, and collective competence. She argued that structural reforms to P&T criteria, journal publishing policies, and funding mechanisms are necessary, but not sufficient. A member of the committee that authored the

__________________

2025 National Academies report The Science and Practice of Team Science, DiazGranados suggested using the report as a roadmap for enacting this essential cultural transformation. She summarized several key recommendations from the report, which she intended to use to stimulate discussion in her breakout session:

• Fund research on team science to develop evidence-based interventions that inform cultural transformation.
• Adapt P&T criteria to recognize complex, essential team roles, including methodologists, mentors, community-engaged researchers, and clinical research coordinators.
• Implement standardized credit policies in journals to acknowledge diverse team contributions.
• Transition from transactional, project-based grants to sustained funding that guarantees long-term stability, protected time, and staff support.
• Require teams to develop evaluation plans and engage in self-assessment to monitor team functioning and collective impact.
• Invest in research to develop metrics capturing team-level competence, shared leadership, knowledge integration, and collective achievement.

DiazGranados concluded that advancing team science requires shifting from investment that supports individual stars to that which builds the organizational infrastructure and culture that enables high-performing teams to thrive, emphasizing that academia must measure what it truly values.

Contributing to Open Access Publishing and Data Sharing

Anna Hatch, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), highlighted in her flash talk HHMI’s efforts to shift academic incentives towards open-access publishing and the sharing of research outputs. Emphasizing that the impact of research extends beyond experiments, Hatch noted that traditional assessment often drives researchers to optimize for publication count, journal placement, and citations, rather than the rapid and broad dissemination of knowledge. HHMI’s initiatives seek to change this culture through a collection of complementary actions that, collectively over time, will realign incentive structures for publication.

Hatch outlined five key aspects of HHMI’s approach:

1. Recognize preprints: HHMI generally recognizes preprints in assessment, encouraging evaluation based on the merits of the research rather than journal prestige. Since 2022, over half of major contributions from HHMI labs were first published as preprints.
2. Mandate preprints: HHMI scientists subject to HHMI’s Immediate Access to Research Policy are required to make articles that represent major contributions publicly available as initial and revised preprints in accordance with this policy, ensuring timely and open dissemination of results.⁶
3. Assess preprints, not journal articles: HHMI’s general practice is to focus internal evaluations on the most recent preprint version for manuscripts subject to HHMI’s Immediate Access to Research Policy. This highlights the work’s content rather than its journal placement.
4. Remove journal names from citations: At HHMI, journal names have been replaced with article identifiers, such as PubMed Identifiers, in competitions and internal review processes to deemphasize journal reputation and reduce reliance on impact factors.
5. Train future reviewers: HHMI early career researchers can receive training through HHMI’s Transparent and Accountable Peer Review Training Program pilot.⁷ Participants receive instruction in effective practices for transparent peer review, write reports on preprints, and publish these reports with DOIs, giving tangible recognition for their constructive contributions to open science.

Hatch remarked that HHMI’s strategy aims to reform assessment to re-prioritize how researchers share their work, driving towards accelerating knowledge dissemi-

__________________

nation, rewarding rigorous scholarship, and supporting open science practices.

Enhancing Research Transparency and Strengthening Research Integrity

C.K. Gunsalus, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, emphasized during her flash talk that maintaining the moral authority to assess researchers depends on rebuilding trust in science. Drawing from her experience as a committee member on the 2017 National Academies Fostering Integrity in Research consensus study, she outlined six core values articulated by the study committee that underpin research integrity: objectivity, openness, accountability, honesty, fairness, and stewardship. Gunsalus highlighted stewardship, or the responsibility for guiding and improving research environments, as often overlooked. The consensus study also highlighted institutional responsibilities, including the need to actively assess, monitor, and improve research settings.

Gunsalus noted that the current discussion evoked the sentiment described in On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B:⁸ she summarized that while science aspires to honesty and fairness, current incentives frequently reward speed, selective reporting, and self-interest, propagating dysfunctional lab cultures and the exploitation of subordinates. Because mentorship frequently reproduces these patterns, she underscored the importance of intentionally measuring and rewarding healthy research practices and benchmarking such measures across labs, departments, and institutions. “If we care about it, we should assess it and use that evidence to shape rewards and policies,” she said, pointing to validated instruments such as the SORC survey, CARES for psychological safety and respect, and BESSI for leadership and self-management. The National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign maintains a benchmarking database for these validated measures. Institutions also hold internal data that could inform assessment and accountability, such as exit surveys, turnover rates, complaints, and degree completion metrics. Gunsalus asserted that benchmarking validated measures across peer and aspirational peer institutions can contribute to accountability and needs to be incorporated into assessment approaches.

Gunsalus called for greater institutional transparency, including the release of final misconduct reports to the public, arguing that trust is built through visible and principled actions. She encouraged institutions to revisit basic questions: What do we stand for? How are we improving the research environment? How are students being prepared as future scientists? And, most importantly, how does leadership maintain public trust in the research they support?

Facilitating Technology and Knowledge Transfer

Rich Carter, Oregon State University, emphasized the importance of renewing the social contract between higher education and the public in his flash talk, highlighting the decline in trust in higher education and the need to align institutional mission, values, and goals. Carter noted that “focusing solely on changing the rules and guidelines is unlikely to have a significant impact on culture. The same phenomenon is recognized time and time again across businesses. Culture trumps strategy and rules every single time.” Carter described his work on the leadership team for the Promotion & Tenure – Innovation & Entrepreneurship (PTIE) movement, which aims to accelerate the translation of university research to societal benefit.⁹ PTIE offers the following key recommendations: align faculty evaluation with institutional mission; create innovation and entrepreneurship metrics that move beyond publications and grants; and integrate these criteria into existing categories of teaching, research, and service (i.e., don’t create a fourth bucket). Drawing on Machiavelli and Everett Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory,¹⁰ he stressed that sustained, persistent interventions are needed to reach a cultural tipping point at which reforms take hold.

Carter highlighted three tactics that PTIE is pursuing to create scalable models for change:

1. Working with NSF ART grant recipients to develop a step-by-step “playbook” for institutions to revise incentive structures.

__________________

2. Partnering with disciplinary societies and accreditation bodies to address P&T norms across departmental microcultures.
3. Collaborating with the National Academy of Inventors to build a keyword-searchable reviewer database that helps institutions identify external reviewers with appropriate expertise.

Carter closed by urging the community to move beyond “analysis paralysis” and towards coordinated, long-term action.

WELCOME AND OVERVIEW OF DAY TWO

Risien began the second day of the workshop by revisiting the diffusion of innovation theory from Carter’s flash talk given the previous day. She explained that innovators and early adopters are often separated by a wide chasm from the pragmatic early majority. Risien stated that she saw present in the room a community of action-oriented visionaries, sometimes frustrated by slow progress but having advanced since 2019. She noted that pragmatists are open to change but lack confidence in proof; it’s up to innovators and early adopters to clarify benefits and show early signs of value. The current urgency might also provide a broader rationale.

Luhar expanded on this framework by emphasizing the ongoing challenges to systemic change and universal adoption. Institutions often hesitate to act until their peers do. He also noted that external pressures, such as university rankings, further reinforce this cautious approach. Luhar continued to highlight the growing impacts on early and mid-career researchers, who are required to adopt increasingly entrepreneurial strategies and seek support from industry, foundations, and community partners. This shift results in new types of outputs that don’t fit traditional metrics, and he emphasized the importance of institutions recognizing and valuing this work now.

KEYNOTE

The keynote talk to open the second day of the workshop was delivered virtually by Elizabeth Gadd, Loughborough University. Gadd serves as chair of the International Network of Research Management Societies’ (INORMS) Research Evaluation Group and at the time of speaking, a vice chair of the Coalition on Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA).

Gadd offered a high-level overview of CoARA and its accomplishments after just a few years. She explained that CoARA emerged from Europe’s urgent need for researcher assessment reform. In 2022, the European University Association, Science Europe, and the European Commission initiated the drafting of the Agreement on Reforming Researcher Assessment, which outlined principles, ten core commitments, and a reform timeline. Among the core commitments are recognizing the diversity of research contributions and careers; prioritizing qualitative, peer-reviewed evaluation supported by the responsible use of quantitative indicators; eliminating inappropriate uses of journal- and publication-based metrics, particularly impact factors and the h-index; and avoiding the use of institutional rankings in assessment. These are complemented by six supporting commitments that ask signatories to dedicate resources to reforming assessment, review assessment criteria, raise awareness of reforms, engage in mutual learning, communicate progress, evaluate their practices based on solid evidence, and make data available to build the evidence base for stronger research assessment. Gadd was quick to point out that “principles are great, but practice is greater, and it’s the practice [embodied in the six supporting commitments] that we need now to actually get the job of assessment reform done.”

CoARA has nearly 900 signatories and close to 800 member institutions as of October 2025. Gadd posited that this demonstrates the appetite for action. She noted that the coalition requires its members to develop action plans and report on their implementation within five years—an accountability structure designed to encourage real, not just symbolic, change.

Turning to the current state of researcher assessment, Gadd highlighted the innovations now reshaping it. She discussed narrative- or evidence-based CVs and the supportive infrastructure emerging to improve their use and assessment, particularly in the EU and UK. She also noted that the assessment field is finally beginning to study newly-developed assessment tools, seeking to apply the same rigor to this as it does to critiquing existing forms of research assessment. Additionally, Gadd mentioned career assessment matrices as a tool for broadening frameworks for measuring and documenting researcher contributions. She noted that without training

and guidance for evaluators, entrenched evaluative habits will persist despite the existence of new assessment mechanisms.

Gadd offered three overarching cautions in moving forward with researcher assessment reform. First, the community needs to think carefully before using assessment to incentivize behaviors. Campbell’s Law, which says that what we measure is what we get, is often invoked in researcher assessment reform. If this is true, Gadd explained, then it may seem logical to measure good practices such as open science and research integrity. However, she continued, there are several problems with this logic:

1. Institutions tend to add new criteria without removing old ones, expanding expectations without shifting what truly matters.
2. Many behaviors being added, such as open science practices or research integrity, are better treated as baseline hygiene factors rather than rewarded achievements. Gadd believes that, like other hygiene factors, e.g., hand-washing or recycling, they don’t need to be incentivized through recognition and reward. Rather, negative consequences might apply if those standards are not met.
3. Systems often reward positive behaviors without addressing negative ones. Gadd remarked, “Your research culture is defined by the worst behavior you are prepared to tolerate.”

Her second caution was that research assessment cannot be fixed in isolation. Gadd acknowledged that researchers are part of an ecosystem influenced by unhelpful incentives like global university rankings, which do not reward the full range of qualities that make for strong universities. INORMS’ Research Evaluation Group created the More Than Our Rank initiative for institutions to showcase achievements beyond those articulated by rankings. She argued that true reform must be global; competing international incentives could hinder progress.

Her third caution was that no assessment system will ever be perfect: “the things that we value about research can’t always be evaluated. And what counts, certainly cannot always be counted.” Gadd remarked that research is too complex, and excellence too multifaceted, to be captured in clean rankings or definitive judgments. Many applications in grant competitions are essentially indistinguishable in quality, leading some funders to adopt lotteries as a fairer alternative to forced distinctions. While the sector remains attached to notions of meritocracy and excellence, these terms are poorly defined and often shaped by the identities and biases of those who succeeded under past systems. Real reform requires more honesty about what assessment can and cannot do, and more comfort with uncertainty and complexity.

To support institutions in developing better assessment mechanisms, Gadd introduced workshop participants to the INORMS SCOPE Framework for Research Evaluation, a three-principle and five-stage process for designing more responsible assessments. Its principles emphasize evaluating only when necessary, co-designing evaluations with those being evaluated, and drawing on professional evaluation expertise. The five stages of the process make up the acronym SCOPE: Scope, Context, Options, Probe, and Evaluate, which guide institutions to articulate what they truly value, understand the context in which assessment is used, choose appropriate indicators, examine unintended consequences, and rigorously evaluate results. No system will be perfect, Gadd reminded the audience, but the question is whether it represents an improvement and whether the community remains willing to learn and iterate.

FACILITATED BREAKOUT SESSION REPORT OUT

The panel following the keynote address convened facilitators from each of the Day 1 breakout sessions to share insights from their group discussions and to reflect on opportunities for action. Online participants contributed their perspectives through an asynchronous survey, with responses incorporated into the report-back structure.

Insights from Breakout Session 1: Engaging the Community in Research and Addressing Local, Societal, and Regulatory Needs

Eri Saikawa, Emory University and workshop planning committee and New Voices member, reported that several participants in her breakout room emphasized that researchers are already deeply motivated to engage communities, even in the absence of institutional incentives.

“People do this because this type of work is impactful,” she noted, and because community-engaged and participatory research produces meaningful impact. Many participants discussed the need for immediate action by the National Academies. They proposed establishing an activity to share resources, highlight what has worked, and identify scalable practices emerging from local efforts. An online participant also mentioned the importance of training faculty and students to conduct this type of work in their survey form. Saikawa added that evaluating these types of training also would be helpful, as such practices are central to cultivating public trust in research.

Insights from Breakout Session 2: Conducting Research-Centered Mentorship for Early Career Researchers

Emily Pentzer, Texas A&M University and workshop planning committee and New Voices member, summarized the thoughts shared in her breakout room. She emphasized that excellent mentorship supports excellent research, fostering the creativity and innovation needed to train the next generation in both academia and the broader workforce. A key takeaway was that mentorship is a skill that can be learned, developed, and improved over time, moving past a binary assessment of “good” or “bad.” The discussion centered on an intentional process for mentor development, where the bare minimum is protecting students from harm, with the ideal of celebrating and rewarding excellent mentorship to enhance the psychosocial safety and career preparedness of junior researchers. To achieve this, Pentzer’s room focused on creating an ecosystem of support that extends beyond the Ph.D. advisor and leverages department, college, and university resources to provide an auxiliary mentor or resource system. Several participants noted the value of establishing minimum expectations for mentoring that are integrated into annual reviews and P&T, while intentionally avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic burden. Finally, many individuals in the group suggested that pilot or pioneering work done at peer institutions could serve as models for developing frameworks that integrate mentorship standards into researcher assessment across disciplines and for achieving a broad cultural shift.

Insights from Breakout Session 3: Fostering Team Science and Interdisciplinary Collaborations

Pramod Khargonekar, University of California, Irvine and workshop planning committee member, noted that the topic discussed in his breakout room is not new or novel, and that there are at least four National Academies reports on team science and collaboration. Still, several participants expressed a sense that team science is not properly recognized or rewarded. Many participants identified the need to acknowledge and offset the penalties and friction that faculty face when engaging in collaborative work. Proposed solutions included rewarding shared leadership by recognizing those who empower junior colleagues and others to lead, rather than focusing solely on the main leader who receives most of the credit. Some breakout room discussants also suggested broadening valued skills to include and encourage integrative capacity formally and to build capacity to bring integration specialists into research teams. There was discussion that shifting the culture of the institution and the academy is essential, and that changing policy alone is insufficient. To build trust between faculty researchers and institutional leadership, institutions could highlight successful examples of team science and collaborative work in which those involved have been recognized, rewarded, and promoted. Finally, there was discussion about the need to create systems that allow for failures in ambitious team science, echoing the DARPA model, because such projects inherently involve risk and take time to demonstrate impact. Khargonekar urged immediate action, suggesting that NSF’s Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts framework could serve as a practical guide for researchers to describe their research outputs.

Insights from Breakout Session 4: Contributing to Open Access Publishing and Data Sharing

Kiermer identified that the main challenge articulated in her breakout room was that openness is currently seen as a requirement for funder compliance rather than a reflection of institutional values. Some participants noted that institutions must emphasize that research outputs, especially data, are public goods or “world heritage,” in Stall’s words. These terms serve as signals to help align practices with core values. To drive change, a few participants suggested interventions such as promoting narrative CVs or other methods to make data sharing practices more visible, improving institutional monitoring and dashboards to track open practices, and expanding education on open licenses and data sharing processes.

Support structures such as open-source program offices, several of which have been sponsored by the Sloan Foundation, were highlighted as critical to enabling researchers to implement best practices.

Furthermore, several discussion participants identified the need for structural support outside of institutional control due to the poor quality of metadata surrounding open science contributions and the necessity of global resilience in data infrastructure. Kiermer suggested that if the research community doesn’t take ownership of the narrative around the value of open science for transparency and impact during this moment of crisis, the promotion of open science risks appearing reactive to regulation rather than proactive, perpetuating the compliance driver instead of the value driver.

Insights from Breakout Session 5: Enhancing Research Transparency and Strengthening Research Integrity

Folks reported that some participants in her breakout group advocated that institutions demonstrate a commitment to research integrity through expanded, discipline-specific training. Folks noted that general, institution-wide modules often lack relevance to a researcher’s circumstances. A few in the group suggested collecting data on research integrity lapses to surface exemplars where ideal practices have taken root based on high-integrity outcomes. The correlation between laboratory safety culture and integrity culture also was discussed, along with potentially aligning efforts to foster a “culture of care” in research spaces. Folks found the idea that all professional societies could elevate research integrity by highlighting exemplary practices significant, such that each discipline has a “north star.” It was noted that prior National Academies consensus studies such as the 2018 Sexual Harassment of Women report have catalyzed significant national shifts. Others advocated for a concise two- to four-page “effective practices” document as a pragmatic next step.

Insights from Breakout Session 6: Facilitating Technology and Knowledge Transfer

Almesha Campbell, Jackson State University and workshop planning committee member, reported that several participants in her breakout room suggested the need to overhaul assessment at the unit level starting with annual performance reviews, which may need to be revamped first, since poor reviews can become problematic during the P&T process. Campbell noted that some in the group stressed that institutional assessment needs to move beyond simple metrics such as grants and publications, recognizing that patents and publications are merely derivatives and cannot be weighed equally. Instead, institutions can value broader innovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) activities, including faculty involvement in industry partnerships, even when the intellectual property belongs to the industry partner. Campbell noted that recent data show that faculty members who are engaged in industry or I&E activities are more productive. She described this as a skill set that universities facilitate and encourage by developing a supportive infrastructure that includes entrepreneurial skill development in curricula.

Furthermore, institutions can consider adopting faculty-friendly incentive models, such as moving to an 80/20 model in which faculty receive a greater share of the profits from intellectual property. Momentum for this cultural shift is being accelerated by federal programs, such as the NSF ART program (also mentioned by Carter), which requires participating universities to explore P&T changes. On a personal note, Campbell emphasized the importance of innovative leadership, transparency, and ongoing conversation, citing PTIE’s collective commitments as a model for overcoming first-mover barriers.

During the Q&A period, Dolan noted a recurring theme across the workshop: the persistent need for mid-career experts who can handle integration and translation across teams. She stressed that such roles require intentional investment in personnel, not an informal add-on to existing faculty responsibilities, warning against treating them as “the fifth leg of the sheep,” in reference to the previously-mentioned “five-legged sheep” problem. Integration, she argued, is an actual area of expertise—one that must be deliberately learned and developed rather than assumed to emerge organically from doing the work. She asked panelists to think critically about how to make space and create capacity for this type of personnel.

The conversation turned towards next steps when Luhar highlighted enthusiasm for creating concise two-page

primers for each thematic area. Folks observed that senior leaders are extremely busy and benefit from simple, actionable guidance that clearly lays out what to do. Khargonekar pointed out that a primer on team science would be relatively straightforward to produce given the extensive existing work in this space. Kiermer added that developing a “common language of why” that comes through this type of documentation is especially important, not as a compliance mechanism but to reinforce institutional values. She noted that open science toolkits already contain adaptable language that could help with this.

Closing the discussion, Yamamoto argued that community engagement must be intentionally embedded at multiple checkpoints rather than relegated to the basic research stage for it to have value for the public. Khargonekar connected this point to public trust, referencing a Pew survey showing that many people question whether scientists’ values align with their own and concluding that engagement throughout the pathway could be a potential solution.¹¹

REFLECTIONS FROM STRATEGIC COUNCIL AND NEW VOICES MEMBERS

Moderator Emily Miller, Association of American Universities, opened the final panel of the workshop by asking panelists from the Strategic Council and New Voices to identify cross-cutting insights from the past day and a half. Strategic Council co-chair, David Allison, Baylor College of Medicine, responded by questioning the underlying premises rather than offering takeaway messages. He noted that scientists do not always “act like scientists” when discussing research assessment, and often fail to question assumptions, examine data, or consider causal inference. Allison urged avoiding parochial thinking and overemphasizing P&T. “The universe is not academia,” he said. Most U.S. scientists are not academics, and even within academia, only a subset is pre-tenure or on the tenure track. He pushed back against the assumption that “quality not quantity” is inherently good, arguing that “quantity has a quality all its own”¹² and that publishing more papers can broaden participation in science. He added that he believes that the culture of the research community can be changed by adjusting hiring practices to reward the intention to make a public impact.

New Voices member Kiana Aran, University of California, San Diego, reflected on how she became involved in promotion-related activities after seeing misalignment between university goals and downstream practices. She emphasized that while the workshop aimed to expand how faculty contributions are evaluated, she also heard “a lot more responsibilities on faculties:” research, mentoring, securing funding, and industry collaboration. She urged building a “flat organization” in which faculty and students work as a team to deliver public impact.

McNutt observed that academia is beginning to think more expansively about what the professoriate looks like, with greater emphasis on serving and listening to the public. However, she expressed worries about the culture passed down to graduate students. If advisors are trained under older metrics, such as impact factors and citation counts, then the next generation will inherit the same habits.

New Voices member Joel Baumgart, Emory University, anticipated that many faculty would be skeptical of change and inclined to defend systems that advanced their careers and served them well. Clear messaging and reassurance will be crucial. Top researchers, he said, need to hear that their work “can go on as it is” and that expanded criteria for tenure will not come at the cost of support for high-performing scientists.

New Voices member Stephanie Diem, University of Wisconsin-Madison, highlighted the value of consensus studies, noting the National Academies’ sexual harassment report as a landmark example that clarified vocabulary, synthesized evidence, and offered actionable steps.

Miller next asked what is most critical for achieving transformational change and recognizing the full range of faculty contributions. McNutt argued against producing “one size fits all” P&T policies. Instead, she suggested that institutions convene and develop a shared process for change along with a template for internal discussions. She suggested that every university begin with reflections

__________________

on its core mission, what it aims to accomplish, and how faculty contributions can align with that mission.

Turning to collective responsibility, Miller asked how universities can value team-based work and evolving faculty member contributions over a career, especially when the current system “brings faculty in as individuals and advances them as individuals.” Allison said expectations must be set from the outset to shape behavior. Senior researchers who built careers on exclusive control of datasets may resist openness, while those trained in environments like the Center for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics expect data to be publicly shared.

Miller next asked how departments can offer mentorship and guidance that maintains research integrity while also expanding what counts as a contribution throughout a faculty member’s career. She highlighted that faculty work increasingly covers a wider range of activities over time and inquired how departments collectively form teams that support multiple institutional missions while acknowledging that individual contributions will change. Baumgart responded that universities often categorize faculty within strict disciplinary taxonomies that struggle to include interdisciplinary or boundary-crossing work, despite institutional rhetoric supporting it. When evaluation systems do not recognize this work, faculty face “double jeopardy.”

McNutt then widened the lens further by questioning whether tenure functions as intended. She expressed concern that the pre-tenure period encourages conformity to institutional signals about “desired” behavior, followed by disengagement after tenure. She cited evidence that publication rates peak before tenure and flatten afterward,¹³ suggesting that models with regular evaluations might better maintain responsibility over time. Aran responded to the comments on tenure by arguing that the publish and grant obtainment cycle drains passion for science and that job security through tenure has historically compensated for lower academic salaries relative to industry. Further, she suggested that building impact through industry collaboration, entrepreneurship, and public engagement can restore meaning, excitement, and leadership capacity: benefits that extend well beyond promotion criteria. Allison contributed his perspective by calling attention to the original purpose of tenure: protecting academic freedom. While acknowledging tenure’s administrative challenges, he emphasized that any future system must provide both sufficient job security and ironclad protections for academic freedom, a requirement he argued is now more critical than ever.

Miller asked what role meta-networking entities, such as professional societies and the National Academies, could play in these conversations and reforms. Diem emphasized the power of networks and institutional support to unlock opportunities by bringing people together. Baumgart echoed this sentiment and spoke of accountability to the public, noting that much university research is publicly funded. He described the power of convening bodies like the National Academies, which can bring many types of expertise together, and shared an anecdote about how his New Voices cohort pooled its expertise to develop a chatbot to answer public health questions quickly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baumgart noted that this exemplifies scientists “getting out of the ivory tower.”

Allison responded to this discussion by cautioning that science communication needs to move beyond two dominant narratives: “one is that the public isn’t inspired enough … I think the other narrative is the public doesn’t understand that things change.” In his opinion, these may not be accurate characterizations of the public’s views with respect to science. Trust is impeded when scientists fail to own errors openly. McNutt agreed, adding that politicians treat uncertainty selectively, embracing science when it aligns with preferred actions and emphasizing uncertainty when it does not. Scientists need to both acknowledge errors and state clearly when the evidence is strong enough to warrant action, such as in childhood vaccinations. She added that past scientific successes are taken for granted; what matters now is listening to the public to understand current needs. Aran reiterated that scientists have a responsibility to respond to public and national needs: “We can’t just ignore it because we will be ignored if we do.”

Audience member Kacy Redd, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, urged panelists to draw more

__________________

deliberately on existing National Academies work on institutional change in higher education. She pointed to relevant efforts led by the Board on Science Education and the Board on Higher Education and Workforce, including Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER), noting that an upcoming National Academies workshop will revisit the DBER report released more than a decade ago. Redd remarked that this body of work offers valuable guidance for evaluating faculty contributions within the teaching enterprise and could inform broader assessment reform efforts.

Responding to a question from Özkan-Haller about how this work can move forward, McNutt described two appropriate mechanisms for next steps that the National Academies commonly use when the primary audience is the research community: (a) consensus studies and (b) action collaboratives. In a consensus study, she said, respected experts establish a shared foundation for change. Action collaboratives then bring together institutional leaders to compare approaches and learn what has worked in practice.

McNutt emphasized that initiating these formal processes need not delay action where evidence already exists. Drawing on prior National Academies efforts, including the sexual harassment consensus study and its follow-on action collaborative, she returned to a theme raised earlier in the workshop: whether the community is already “certain enough” to act. She cautioned against waiting for perfect certainty, arguing instead for moving forward where the evidence is strong while continuing to evaluate and refine approaches over time.

CLOSING REMARKS

In her closing reflections, Risien urged participants to ask, “Who are we missing?” She noted that professional research staff, the “doers” across the research enterprise, were absent from this conversation, even as institutions increasingly rely on them. Echoing points raised earlier by Aran, Risien observed that universities often ask tenure-track faculty to “do all the things” without providing the scaffolding, resources, or team structures needed to make this work sustainable. Graduate training, frequently referenced throughout the workshop, also emerged as having its own structural issues that assessment reform alone cannot resolve.

Risien emphasized the need for greater precision in language, cautioning against shorthand that equates P&T solely with tenure-track faculty. Such framing, she argued, obscures how assessment systems shape risk and incentives across the entire research enterprise. She encouraged participants to take the conversation back to their own institutions by convening local discussions, sharing evolving thinking, and surfacing success stories.

Risien, drawing on McNutt’s framing, asked whether the community is already “certain enough” to act in some areas. Referencing Gadd’s discussion of the “hygiene of research,” Risien distinguished between extrinsic and intrinsic motivators of reform. She asked if some of these reforms might be considered “research hygiene” items, such as compliance and policy requirements. These can be separated in approach from intrinsic, value-driven motivations like engagement, transparency, and curiosity. Acknowledging concerns about declining federal funding and increasing institutional risk aversion, Risien concluded her reflections by urging participants to move forward where evidence already demonstrates shared values and common ground between what the public needs from science and the impacts researchers can support in society.

Luhar ended the workshop by emphasizing that some elements of research culture must remain non-negotiable, particularly research integrity and transparency. He noted that this workshop was useful to identify areas where evidence is already strong and where the community could take immediate steps. He suggested that one of these steps include developing short, actionable two- to four-page briefs that summarize what is known to incentivize positive behavior and cultural change in specific areas of reform. At the same time, Luhar underscored the need to “act as scientists” in areas where evidence remains limited, supporting calls for a National Academies consensus study and action collaborative to rigorously evaluate new approaches while reform efforts continue.

DISCLAIMER This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was prepared by Priyanka Bushana and Sarah M. Rovito as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. The statements made are those of the rapporteur(s) or individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants; the planning committee; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

PLANNING COMMITTEE Mitul Luhar (Co-Chair), University of Southern California; Julie Risien (Co-Chair), Oregon State University; Almesha Campbell, Jackson State University; Liesl Folks, University of Arizona; Pramod Khargonekar, University of California, Irvine; Véronique Kiermer, Public Library of Science (PLOS); Emily Pentzer, Texas A&M University; Eri Saikawa, Emory University. The National Academies’ planning committees are solely responsible for organizing the workshop, identifying topics, and choosing speakers. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the rapporteur(s) and the National Academies.

REVIEWERS To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was reviewed by Gerald F. Goodwin, U.S. Army Research Institute (Retired); Umut Gurkan, Case Western Reserve University; Farrah Jacquez, University of Cincinnati; and Kacy Redd, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. Leslie Sim, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, served as the review coordinator.

SPONSORS This activity was supported by two grants between the National Academy of Sciences and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

STAFF Sarah M. Rovito, Alison Boland-Reeves, Komal Syed, Jordan Graves, Beau Nielsen, and Karla Riley.

SUGGESTED CITATION National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2026. Rethinking Researcher Assessment and Incentives at U.S. Academic Institutions: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/29421.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For additional information regarding the workshop, visit https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/PGA-POLICY-25-04/event/45044. Copyright 2026 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.