STScI Annual Science Staff Evaluation

2008

Science Evaluation Committee

• Mario Livio (Chair)

• Jay Anderson

• Roeland van der Marel

• Dave Soderblom

• Rachel Somerville

• Harry Ferguson (non-voting)

Some highlights of 2007 - 2008

• 69 staff evaluated; 85% submitted self-evaluations

• 53 first-author publications• 76 colloquia given• 64 P.I. proposals submitted• 14 outside awards or recognitions• 71 memberships on scientific panels• 216 outreach activities• 2 strategic mission concept studies, 1 SMEX;

substantial involvement in LSST, JDEM, SIM, and other future missions.

Astronomer (50-50)

Scientist (20-80)

1st Author Papers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

N

Total papers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

N

Unrefereed Publications

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Proposals

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Meetings and Colloquia

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Panels & Community Service

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Outreach

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Mentoring

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Some Cumulative DistributionsTotal Refereed papers

.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 13 14 15

MoreN

Total Proposals Submitted

.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14More

N

Community Service Activities

.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14More

N

Outreach Activities

.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

N

All statistics are only for those who submitted self-evaluations

It’s not just statistics…

• Science essays were read carefully. Most people, but not all, took the opportunity to provide a 1 page essay.

• It is important to make clear (without overstating) why your work will have a significant impact.

• Comments on process welcome…Thanks to all.

Comparison to other institutions 2004-8

Caveat: These are likely to be “noisy” because no special care has been taken to weed out invalid citations for authors with common names.