这篇文章的作者，斯坦福大学的Richard N. Zare，是我的同行，更是前辈。他当年的工作致力于激光控制化学反应，虽然后来的研究证明，这是一个很难的题目，一时半会做不成，但是这必竟开辟了一个很有重大科学意义的研究方向，相信后来人经过努力，将来一定能实现，那个时候使用激光分子剪刀手术，相信可以很容易修改基因中的坏份子，由此治疗一些遗传性的疾病，至于治疗癌症，艾滋病等等，更是小菜一碟。科普 Zare的工作，相信科学网上大博主王鸿飞更有资格。激光控制化学反应，其实是在李远哲的交叉分子束化学反应之后的又一重大进步。与之平行的工作，是加州理工Zewail教授的飞秒化学（1999年诺贝尔化学奖）。Zewail的工作是在时间尺度上让人类更深一步地认识到了化学反应的本质，由此也说明了Zare的激光控制化学反应一时半会做不成。闲话少说，回到正体。该文章发表于Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 7338 – 7339。由于是匆忙翻译，请以英文为主。
评价研究者学术水平（戴德昌 译）
Richard N. Zare，Department of Chemistry，Stanford University， 斯坦福大学化学系
In judging researchers early in their career, the h-index seems to be a poor measure。
在评价处于早期职业生涯的研究者的学术水平方面，使用h-index看起来是一种不靠谱的方法。
Not being highly cited does not mean that someone’s work will never have value。
没有高引用率并不意味着某人的科学研究工作永远没有价值
最近到中国和印度旅行，有了很多机会和年轻的研究人员一起讨论怎样达到职业上的成功。他们中的很多人认为，通向成功的重要标准，是需要通过各种形式的科学计量数据（“scientometric” data）评估，比如 h-index 因子，发表论文的引用次数。我认为这些科学计量数据评估有他们的用处，但是，我个人很不喜欢对此的过分使用甚至滥用。
这些让我感觉到，十分有必要分享一下斯坦福大学化学系对教授评定终身职务（tenure）所使用的一些尺度标准，因为我曾经做了六年的系主任。请不要误解，我不是鼓吹大家使用我们的方式和标准，这也只是眼下美国大学中的终身职务（tenure）制度而已，我觉得认真分析研究一下是肯定大有帮助的。我当然认识到我们现在的这种制度中的一些内在的深层次问题。同时我也知道，有些外国人对其他国家的文化和做事方式不感兴趣，甚至傲慢地歧视（意思是说，对作者讨论美国的tenure制度不感兴趣）。尽管如此，还是让我来说些建议和忠告。
在当前美国大学的终身制度中，我们先聘用研究者为助理教授，在之后的7年中再决定是否转成永久职务。这是比较难的事情，因为我们要综合评估这个人的学术质量，学术声誉， 并紧密结合本系的氛围。这些人总是通过工作刻苦得到永久职位，如果出现误判的后果是严重的，受到损害的不只是一个研究人员，而是整个系的层面的损失。因此，重中之重放在如何判断一个研究人员的真正价值，这就需要格外注意评估过程的公平，透明，整个系里标准尺度的一致性。我们一贯致力于消除这些教员和系里老教授之间的友谊，个人喜好等因素对做出最终决定的影响。
在斯坦福化学系，我告诉这些新教员有三个标准用来评估晋升永久职位
新人要得到永久职位需要做到:
-
成为系里的突出人物。我们的系很小，因此需要每位成员和大家一起协调工作达到共赢。
-
成为好老师。是的，我们喜欢每位成员都是一位伟大的教师。但是，我们只要求所有立志成为好老师的教授能真正做到这一点。对我们这样的教学和科研兼重的大学，教学是一项关键任务，并且，应该把学生教到最好。
-
成为模范研究人员。这项成为关键要求是因为斯坦福大学是一所研究型的大学。但是，这很难评估，并且也是评估中的最大挑战。
我们怎样评判某个人是一位很有价值的研究人员？当然，是系里的每位永久人员投票选出，但是这个过程需要通过大学设立的多级考核。因此，对上面第三点的要求是，没有最好，只有更好。某位需要晋升的人员的真正价值不只是通过本系成员的判断，更重要的，还需要考虑10到15份系外专家的评审意见，这些专家或者是美国本土的，或者是国际上的。我要求这些专家从正方面的眼光来审查是否某位人员的科学研究改变了化学领域的主流观点。
我们不去审查某位人员给大学申请来了多少项目，多少钱。我们不去数发表论文的数目。我们更不根据作者排名位置来给论文排名一二三。我们不使用期刊杂志的影响因子来衡量高论文的质量高低。我们几乎没有用过h-index因子去衡量一个人的论文。我们只是简单的问系里系外的评审专家，是不是这人确凿的改变了我们化学上的主流看法。
所有这些都和在国外（中国，印度）旅行中听到的明显大相径庭。看起来在如何评价一个研究人员的真正价值方面，有太多偏重于看待发表论文的数量，而不是研究工作本身的质量和原创性。就像智商并不能说明一个人的研究工作是具有多么的开创性和原创性，h-index因子也不是一个全面的衡量，粗略地看这里有大概的联系，但是用它来评估一个早期的研究人员，h-index是不靠谱。在衡量职业成功方面，h-index 看起来更象是一个盖棺定论性的指标，而不一个衡量领先科学研究的指标。
不可否认，从论文引用次数可以看出一份科研工作的知名度，以及该篇论文的影响。没有高引用率不是说某人的科研工作永远没有价值。很多例子说明引用次数并不能立即说明该篇论文是否有价值。我想举出一个实际例子说明，是化学领域外的一个专门例子，来说明这一点。S. Weinberg 有一篇论文，发表于Phys. Rev. Lett. 1967, 19, 1264–1266，题目是：轻子的一个模型。这个期刊大家都知道。这篇论文中，Steven Weinberg （当时是麻省理工的一位访问教授）说，弱的核力和强的电磁力可以通过交换亚原子粒子方式被统一，尽管二者的强度有天壤之别。这篇论文成为粒子物理的标准模型的基石，因此Steven Weinberg分享了1979年的诺贝尔物理学奖。1967和1968年，没有引用，1969 和 1970 各引用了一次，1971年引用了4 次，其中还有一篇自引。现在，根据Web of Knowledge的数据，这篇论文引用了5224次。很容易找到其他更多的例子说明，引用次数的上升需要一个慢的引导期，因为这些新想法和实验测量都不是当时的主流观点。
其他大学或许使用不同的评估方法，比如研究课题组的大小，或者发表论文数量，这些很简单，可以让不懂行的大学管理者很容易明白。然而，我相信我们的评估标准能真正有助于找到最好的教授。我也认为我们的这些尺度最接近那些各种科技奖的评选程序，并且也很接近美国各个科学院选举院士的程序。
我不想给你们一个印象说，我们的程序是完美的。我们也晋升了几个人，后来发现他们不再积极致力于科研和教学。不管怎样，我认为这套晋升程序对我们来说是最好的。我们的尺度并不是想每个人都追随着做，但是，我充分相信，这些实实在在的帮助我们把研究工作做到真正的卓越和杰出。
Assessing Academic Researchers
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201201011/abstract
On a recent trip to China and India, I had the opportunity to discuss with many young researchers at various universities about the expectations that they must meet in order to succeed professionally. Many of them thought that the road to success was measured invarious forms of “scientometric” data, such as h-index factors and the numberof publication citations. I do think that scientometric data have their uses, but I am appalled at the overuses and abuses. These discussions encouraged me to share the criteria for making tenure at Stanford University[1]s Chemistry Department, where I was the department chair for six years. I am not necessarily advocating that anyone adopt our ways, which reflect the current American tenure system, but I do think that a careful study of our criteria might be helpful. I am aware of the problems embeddedin the American tenure system. I am also very much mindful of the arrogance of foreigners when they are not sensitive to another country[1]s culture and ways. Still, let me dare to offer some advice.
In the American university system, under the current tenure setup, we hire researchers as assistant professors and then decide within seven years whether or not we want them to permanently stay in the department. It is always a difficult decision, because faculty members to whom we give tenure determine the quality, reputation, and atmosphere of our department. Beginning faculty members work hard to achieve tenure and the consequences of misjudging the promise of a beginning faculty member are severe, not only for the faculty member but also for the department. Consequently, much emphasis is placed on judging a researcher[1]s worth, and this task requires great attention to be given to the evaluation process so that it is fair, transparent, and consistent with the standards that the department sets. Every effort is made to avoid decisions based on simply friendship or favoritism on the part of the most established members of the department.
At Stanford University's Chemistry Department, I tell beginning faculty members that there are three criteria for achieving tenure. The new hires, in order to achieve tenure, need to be:
-
Outstanding departmental citizens. Our department is small so we need everyone to work cohesively together for the common good of our group.
-
Good teachers. Yes, we would love every faculty member to be a great teacher. But we only ask that all faculty members become good teachers because anyone who aspires to achieve that status can do so. Teaching is a critical component of our service to a teaching and research institution, and we owe it to students to take our instruction to the highest level possible.
-
Exemplary researchers. This last criterion makes sense because Stanford University is primarily a research university. But it is the most difficult to assess, and presents the greatest challenge.
How do we judge someone's worth as a researcher? Of course, all tenured faculty members in the department have a vote on this, but the process goes through many other layers of university inspection and consideration. For this reason, it is important to define this last criterion as best as we can. The worthiness of a faculty member is not solely judged by the members of the department but more importantly, by the contents of 10 to 15 letters of recommendation that we collect from experts outside the department, both nationally and internationally. We ask these experts whether the candidate[1]s research has changed the community[1]s view of chemistry in a positive way.
We do not look into how much funding the candidate has brought to the university in the form of grants. We do not count the number of published papers; we also do not rank publications according to authorship order. We do not use some elaborate algorithm that weighs publications in journals according to the impact factor of the journal. We seldom discuss h-index metrics, which aim to measure the impact of a researcher[1]s publications. We simply ask outside experts, as well as our tenured faculty members, whether a candidate has significantly changed how we understand chemistry.
All of this is quite different from what I heard during my recent trips abroad. It seemed to me that in the assessment of a researcher[1]s value, too much emphasis appeared to be placed on the number of publications churned out by a researcher instead of the quality and originality of the work. Just as the IQ number does not capture the creativity and originality of a person[1]s work, the h-index is not a full measure. Some rough correlations do exist, but in judging researchers early in their career, the h-index seems to be a poor measure. It is more a trailing, rather than a leading, indicator of professional success.
It can not be denied that having knowledge of the number of citations of some publication has value and serves as a first measure of how well known is the work and how much impact does this specific publication have. Not being highly cited does not mean that someone[1]s work will never have value. Examples exist where the citation numbers do not immediately indicate what value some work has. I want to bring to your attention one such instance, and purposely choose something outside of chemistry to make this point. Consider the publication S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1967, 19, 1264–1266 entitled “A Model of Leptons”. By no stretch of the imagination is Physical Review Letters considered an obscure journal. In this paper, Steven Weinberg (who was a visiting professor at MIT) showed that the weak nuclear force and the much stronger electromagnetic force could be unified through the interchange of subatomic particles in spite of the huge difference in their strengths.This work laid the basis for what is called the Standard Model of particle physics, for which Weinberg shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979. In 1967 and 1968, there were no citations to this publication, in 1969 and 1970, one citation each, and in 1971, the citation number jumps to four, one of the citations being a self-citation, that is, a reference by Weinberg to his earlier work. At present, this article has beencited 5 224 times, according to the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge. It is easy to find other cases where there has been a slow induction period because some idea or measurement lies outside of what is popularly accepted at the time of publication.
Other institutions may need to use different measures, such as the size of the research group or the numbers of papers published, which are all simpler to explain to university administrators who have little understanding of the field. However, we believe our criteria truly help to appoint the best faculty members for our department at Stanford University. We also think our criteria closely reflect the procedures by which various prizes are awarded in our field, and how individuals are elected to membership in the different science academies in our country.
I do not want to leave you with the impression that our procedures are perfect. We have inadvertently tenured a few people who later showed less enthusiasm for research and teaching than we had anticipated. Nevertheless, I think this procedure is the best method for us. Our criteria are not for everyone to follow, but I do believe that they have helped us achieve true excellence and distinction in research.
