Research & Reviews at STScI. Neill Reid Science Mission Office

Transcription

1 Research & Reviews at STScI Neill Reid Science Mission Office Mentoring meeting 1

2 Staff Complement February AURA Astronomer Track (tenure-track) (50:50) 32 tenured staff 28 AURA Scientist Track staff (usually 80:20) 4 senior scientists, 3 observatory scientists 3 AURA HST Scientists (80:20) 4 ESA staff (50:50) 10 ESA-AURA staff (50:50) 4 CSA Scientists 50:50, 80:20) 5 Emeritus Astronomers Other research staff 27 postdoctoral fellows, including 3 Giacconi fellows, 1 Hubble fellow & 1 Sagan fellow (@JHU, but 17 graduate students 2 Mentoring meeting

3 Why do we have a research staff? Scientific excellence at the institutional level is required to establish credibility & leadership within the broader community, and essential in maximising the scientific impact of HST and JWST...My experience with the Einstein program was that the best scientists gave the best service;..everybody works, everybody plays (does research)... the cost of a highly talented and motivated staff {is} more than offset by their ability to fully and quickly understand what {has} to be done; reduce the requirements to those strictly necessary for science; and quickly complete the work, whether they did it personally or by leading a group.. R. Giacconi, in Secrets of the Hoary Deep How do we assess STScI staff scientific excellence? 3 Mentoring meeting

4 Research staff evaluation processes 4 Mentoring meeting

5 Research staff evaluations Five processes Annual functional performance appraisal All research staff Annual science performance evaluation Required for AURA research staff; voluntary for ESA & CSA research staff Science Personnel Committee (SPC) reviews Promotions & renewals for AURA staff Mid-term meeting with Director Untenured astronomer track & Associate Scientists Post-tenure reviews Tenured astronomer track, Observatory Scientist & Senior Scientist 5 Mentoring meeting

6 Staff evaluations (1) Functional appraisals Mandatory for all STScI personnel Organised by HR department and conducted by functional supervisor Purpose is to assess how well a staff member has met annual goals and objectives, to provide feedback on areas for future improvement, and to provide guidance (from a functional perspective) on how to fulfill overall career objectives. Covers July 1 June 30 for each year; reviews completed by October/November 6 Mentoring meeting

7 Staff evaluations (2) Annual science evaluations Mandatory for AURA staff (evaluation feeds into merit pay increase); voluntary for ESA & CSA Based on self-appraisals submitted by staff: publications (over 2 years), talks, community service, 1-page essay Organised by SMO and conducted by annually-selected committee of peers Reviews carried out in May-June timeframe Staff are assessed in 3 categories: above expectations, meet expectations, below expectations 2010 statistics: ~20% above; 70% meet; 10% below The committee looks for..evidence that a proportional amount of the person s time is being devoted to knowledge discovery. Knowledge discovery is broadly defined. It can range from independent scientific research, to the invention and development of new tools for conducting research, to creation of innovative ways to disseminate astronomical information. These reviews are not an in-depth assessment of staff performance Main goal is to identify outliers 7 Mentoring meeting

8 Staff evaluations (3) Science Personnel Committee Reviews Primary process for assessing renewals and promotions for research staff, including tenure decisions Junior staff reviewed for renewal of 3-year contracts Organised by SMO and conducted by a standing committee of peers Staff member will be asked to submit specific materials Reviews include separate in-depth functional and research assessments (written reports) by individual committee members Functional review includes consideration of annual appraisals and reference letter from supervisor + 2 other STScI staff nominated by person under review Research review looks at long-term scientific productivity and impact Comparison with other staff at similar levels No reference to annual science evaluations External reference letters (functional and research) are sought for most promotions, including tenure (but not assistant to associate w/out tenure) 8 Mentoring meeting

9 Staff evaluations (3a) Science Personnel Committee Reviews (contd) SPC presents the results of its review to the Senior Science Staff, who make recommendations to the Director SPC Chair and Head of SMO meet with individual staff members to inform them of the conclusions, and provide feedback and advice Written communication of results (plus feedback) to the candidate and HR 9 Mentoring meeting

10 Staff evaluations (4) Mid-term review Mandatory for AURA junior staff ~halfway towards tenure/promotion to scientist ~3.5 years for astronomer track ~4.5 years for assistant/associate scientist Relatively informal process Director, deputy director, Head of SMO & staff mentor Staff member gives ~20 minute presentation on past research & functional Goal Assessment of whether the staff member is on track to make tenure or promotion to scientist 10 Mentoring meeting

11 Scientific productivity: recent results 11

12 Research products summary for 2009 Statistics collected via 2009 science evaluations 12 Category Refereed publ. (1 st author) Unrefereed publ. (1 st author) Astronomer track, CSA, ESA Scientist track (50) 166 (17) 331 (68) 100 (12) Proposals (PI) 246 (52) 91 (30) Colloquia Review panels Prizes & Awards 6 2

13 Metrics: We re number 8! The Taiwan project: ranks institutions based on publications in limited number of journals & impact of those papers only includes universities. Using their methodology, Jill Lagerstom has compiled a league table using Web of Science astronomy & astrophysics journals; high impact papers are from the top 1% indexed by web of science; high impact journals are ApJ, ApJS & Journal of Cosmology & Astroparticles. Jill is working on applying this methodology to a more appropriate set of journals total Caltech Harvard UC Berk Cambridge Princeton U Paris JHU STScI Penn State Tokyo U MD Oxford MIT No. papers, , weight 10 2 No. papers, 2009, 10 3 Citations, , 10 4 Citations, , 10 5 <citations>, , 10 6 H_index, , 20 7 No. highly-cited papers, , 15 8 No. articles in high impact journals, 15 UCLA Stanford UCSB

14 Institutional Acceptance Fraction Includes institutions that submitted at least 3 HST proposals