All Members Community

Hello fellow core folks,

I would greatly appreciate views from the hive mind with regards to the new NIH biosketch common format. I'm hitting some walls in effectively communicating my impact.

For context: I am a light microscopy core director. In this role, we primarily train researchers how to operate the equipment themselves and provide guidance on how to implement experimental plans, usually using tried and true methods. Most projects that come through our core do not have substantial experimental contributions from core staff. This makes it very fast and affordable for the scientists to get their work done, but makes it difficult to demonstrate impact using the typical currency of publication authorship.

In the old Biosketch format, I would use the Contributions to Science section to describe my training efforts and include publications that resulted from those efforts, even if I was not an author (though I was explicitly acknowledged).

The new format only allows citations in a section called "Products", which I think (and assume others will think) should be limited to citations on which I am an author. The Contributions to Science section only allows reference to citations in the Products section, no direct citations. This leaves me with many, many publications for which I was important (but not author important) that have no place to go in the new format.

Has anyone else in a similar role been thinking about how to get our impact across in this new format? 

Here are my current ideas:

• Include a line in my Personal Statement with aggregate statistics. "I have been explicitly acknowledged in XX peer-reviewed publications and YY PhD theses".
• Vaguely refer to publications in the Contributions to Science section. Something like "I helped this group who never used microscopes before do standard but complicated microscopy. This resulted in 3 publications in YEARS, including in Journals A, B and C. in which I am acknowledged" so that reviewers can find them.

I appreciate keeping this thread focused on what to do with what we currently have since the S10 submission is 3 months away. Discussion on changing authorship strategies moving forward is absolutely important, but won't impact this grant cycle so I prefer it be separate. 

Many thanks!

Wendy

Hi Wendy,

Products in the new format are defined as the following:

• publications, conference papers, and presentations;
• website(s) or other Internet site(s);
• technologies or techniques;
• inventions, patents, patent applications, and/or licenses; and
• other products, such as data, databases, or datasets, physical collections, audio or video products, software, models, educational aids or curricula, instruments or equipment, research material, interventions (e.g., clinical or educational), or new business creation.

Thus beyond publications, do you have presentations, training websites, videos etc? That can work since they are listed above. If you don't, then I would suggest to consider transferring some of the teaching effort that you already have into these types of products where you can add your name as well as other contributors from your core as a citable product. 

Beyond that, what you stated regarding the personal statement is indeed valid and you should add. But I would consider my recommendation above as well.

Hope this helps!

Hello fellow core folks,

I would greatly appreciate views from the hive mind with regards to the new NIH biosketch common format. I'm hitting some walls in effectively communicating my impact.

For context: I am a light microscopy core director. In this role, we primarily train researchers how to operate the equipment themselves and provide guidance on how to implement experimental plans, usually using tried and true methods. Most projects that come through our core do not have substantial experimental contributions from core staff. This makes it very fast and affordable for the scientists to get their work done, but makes it difficult to demonstrate impact using the typical currency of publication authorship.

In the old Biosketch format, I would use the Contributions to Science section to describe my training efforts and include publications that resulted from those efforts, even if I was not an author (though I was explicitly acknowledged).

The new format only allows citations in a section called "Products", which I think (and assume others will think) should be limited to citations on which I am an author. The Contributions to Science section only allows reference to citations in the Products section, no direct citations. This leaves me with many, many publications for which I was important (but not author important) that have no place to go in the new format.

Has anyone else in a similar role been thinking about how to get our impact across in this new format? 

Here are my current ideas:

• Include a line in my Personal Statement with aggregate statistics. "I have been explicitly acknowledged in XX peer-reviewed publications and YY PhD theses".
• Vaguely refer to publications in the Contributions to Science section. Something like "I helped this group who never used microscopes before do standard but complicated microscopy. This resulted in 3 publications in YEARS, including in Journals A, B and C. in which I am acknowledged" so that reviewers can find them.

I appreciate keeping this thread focused on what to do with what we currently have since the S10 submission is 3 months away. Discussion on changing authorship strategies moving forward is absolutely important, but won't impact this grant cycle so I prefer it be separate. 

Many thanks!

Wendy

Bringing this topic up again to hear if anyone has some examples. I think we all agree that "running a core" is a huge deal, so I'm wondering how to turn that into a Product or Contribution. Can it be equipment grants? Or numbers of hours/services/instruments/etc? Or maybe users trained? Management? Any and all ideas welcome!

Hi Wendy,

Products in the new format are defined as the following:

• publications, conference papers, and presentations;
• website(s) or other Internet site(s);
• technologies or techniques;
• inventions, patents, patent applications, and/or licenses; and
• other products, such as data, databases, or datasets, physical collections, audio or video products, software, models, educational aids or curricula, instruments or equipment, research material, interventions (e.g., clinical or educational), or new business creation.

Thus beyond publications, do you have presentations, training websites, videos etc? That can work since they are listed above. If you don't, then I would suggest to consider transferring some of the teaching effort that you already have into these types of products where you can add your name as well as other contributors from your core as a citable product. 

Beyond that, what you stated regarding the personal statement is indeed valid and you should add. But I would consider my recommendation above as well.

Hope this helps!

Hello fellow core folks,

I would greatly appreciate views from the hive mind with regards to the new NIH biosketch common format. I'm hitting some walls in effectively communicating my impact.

For context: I am a light microscopy core director. In this role, we primarily train researchers how to operate the equipment themselves and provide guidance on how to implement experimental plans, usually using tried and true methods. Most projects that come through our core do not have substantial experimental contributions from core staff. This makes it very fast and affordable for the scientists to get their work done, but makes it difficult to demonstrate impact using the typical currency of publication authorship.

In the old Biosketch format, I would use the Contributions to Science section to describe my training efforts and include publications that resulted from those efforts, even if I was not an author (though I was explicitly acknowledged).

The new format only allows citations in a section called "Products", which I think (and assume others will think) should be limited to citations on which I am an author. The Contributions to Science section only allows reference to citations in the Products section, no direct citations. This leaves me with many, many publications for which I was important (but not author important) that have no place to go in the new format.

Has anyone else in a similar role been thinking about how to get our impact across in this new format? 

Here are my current ideas:

• Include a line in my Personal Statement with aggregate statistics. "I have been explicitly acknowledged in XX peer-reviewed publications and YY PhD theses".
• Vaguely refer to publications in the Contributions to Science section. Something like "I helped this group who never used microscopes before do standard but complicated microscopy. This resulted in 3 publications in YEARS, including in Journals A, B and C. in which I am acknowledged" so that reviewers can find them.

I appreciate keeping this thread focused on what to do with what we currently have since the S10 submission is 3 months away. Discussion on changing authorship strategies moving forward is absolutely important, but won't impact this grant cycle so I prefer it be separate. 

Many thanks!

Wendy