I really appreciate all the senior researchers like @pdakean sharing insights into how scientists are evaluated during tenure review. And it also really bums me out. In my heart, I’m a collaborator and a data scientist. Here’s why this is a problem (1/n) https://twitter.com/pdakean/status/1264585831219593216

There are SO many papers where I’m 2nd author but did most or all of the analysis and study design (secondary data analysis) and on some of them much of the writing. It’s been wonderful working with these brilliant colleagues and I’m proud of the work we added to the field. (2/n)

Every one of the first authors would tell you that the papers I’m talking about were only possible because the two of us worked together. They brough data that they spent enormous effort collecting, and I brought expertise in “what works for whom” questions. (3/n)

And yet, my general read is that in most formal evaluative settings these papers won’t count for much (of anything). So that strongly disincentivizes people who have statistical expertise from collaborating with people who have clinical trial expertise. (4/n)

Ask any of my colleagues whether they feel like they deserve 100% of the credit for the papers where they are first author and I did the analysis. They would all say no, so TT review in which only 1st and senior pubs count might do with some reflection. (5/n)

I think this “first author takes all” approach is idiotic. If you value papers with good data & advanced methods then we need a system that doesnt punish collaborative science. Otherwise, data scientists will continue to struggle in TT psych departments, & science will suffer 6/6