Scholarly Work Beyond the Bench: Five Communication Duties That Deserve Promotion Credit
In many US departments, science communication still enters the promotion file through a side door. It appears as service, outreach, or professional activity, often listed without context and weighted lightly. Yet the work itself can be scholarly: it requires synthesis, editorial judgment, public record, and peer response. The problem is not that committees refuse to value communication. The problem is that the label outreach encourages reviewers to see a one-way, optional activity rather than a form of scholarly labor.
NI Lab argues for a narrower and more defensible position. Not all science communication belongs in a promotion file as scholarship. But five concrete tasks do merit serious credit when they are documented with the same evidence standards used for other academic work. The aim is not to inflate service into research. The aim is to describe communication work accurately so that early-career researchers and lab directors can present it without apology.
Why the outreach label undersells the work
Outreach suggests a favor performed for a public audience. Scholarly communication often involves the same activities as research: reviewing evidence, organizing disagreement, writing for a defined audience, responding to criticism, and maintaining a public record. A recurring journal club is not merely a calendar item. It is a sustained forum for critical appraisal. A public lab notebook is not a blog. It is a versioned protocol record that others can use.
US promotion committees already know how to evaluate artifacts. They read papers, teaching statements, syllabi, and service records. Communication work can be presented in the same idiom: what was made, for whom, under what review, and with what evidence of use. The case is strongest when the task has a public artifact and a verifiable function.
Five tasks that belong in the file
1. Maintaining a public lab notebook or protocol record
A public notebook that records protocols, failed conditions, and revisions is a reproducibility artifact. It can support publications and help other labs adopt methods. Evidence to collect: a stable link or DOI, version history, a short note on which published papers used the protocol, and any documented reuse by outside groups. Do not report pageviews as a substitute for use. A single citation in another lab protocol may matter more than a large but unverifiable audience.
2. Organizing a recurring journal club
Organizing a journal club involves selecting papers, framing discussion, inviting outside readers, and maintaining continuity. It is peer education with a public record. Evidence to collect: the syllabus or session list, dates, names of organizers and discussants, sample discussion notes, and any evaluative feedback from participants or invited speakers. If the club produced a public reading list or annotated bibliography, include it. The scholarly function is critical appraisal, not attendance volume.
3. Writing editorially reviewed explainers or research briefs
An explainer published by a magazine, professional society, or university office with editorial review is a public scholarship artifact. So is a research brief written for practitioners or policymakers. Evidence to collect: the publication venue, editorial policy, byline, date, and a copy of the piece. Note any corrections or updates, because a correction history is a sign of editorial accountability, not a flaw to hide. If the brief was requested by an agency or professional group, record the request and the resulting use.
4. Producing accessible summaries of conference talks or posters
A plain-language summary of a conference presentation can extend the scholarly record beyond the room. This task is stronger when it is systematic: a lab that summarizes its own conference outputs each year, or a department that maintains an archive of accessible abstracts, has created a resource. Evidence to collect: the archive, the summaries, the conference dates, and any evidence that instructors or other labs used the material. Avoid counting social media impressions. Prefer documented adoption, such as inclusion in a course reading list or a request for permission to reuse.
5. Leading communication training or peer review within a lab
A senior student who runs a writing group, trains newcomers in figure design, or organizes internal peer review is performing scholarly labor. So is a lab director who builds a communication curriculum for the group. Evidence to collect: workshop materials, schedules, participant lists, and short evaluations. A brief testimonial from a participant can be appropriate if it is specific and attributable. The point is to show what was taught, who used it, and how it changed practice.
A lightweight template for documentation
Candidates should not need a separate promotion dossier for communication. One page per significant task is enough. The template below keeps the focus on evidence rather than applause.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Artifact | Link, DOI, file, or archive location |
| Scholarly function | Synthesis, critical appraisal, translation, training, or public record |
| Audience and access | Who can use it and under what conditions |
| Review or sponsorship | Editor, host department, professional society, or instructor |
| Outcome evidence | Adoption, citation, invitation, correction, or documented request |
| Role and period | Solo or team role, dates, and approximate effort |
This format discourages metric inflation. It asks for artifacts and verification, not raw reach. A candidate can list a public notebook without claiming a large audience. A journal club organizer can show a syllabus and a speaker list without implying that attendance equals scholarly impact. A writer can include an editor-reviewed explainer and note that it was reprinted by a professional society. Each item is modest, specific, and checkable.
What committees can do
Departments do not need to create a new promotion category. They can ask candidates to map communication artifacts to existing criteria: scholarship, teaching, and service. A public protocol record may fit scholarship and teaching. A journal club may fit teaching and professional service. An editorially reviewed explainer may fit public scholarship. The key is to evaluate the artifact and its verification, not the label on the section heading.
Committees can also ask a simple question during review: would this work be legible to an outside scholar in the field? If the answer is yes, the artifact deserves the same scrutiny as other evidence. If the answer is no, the candidate should describe it more clearly or leave it out. That standard is fair to candidates and useful to reviewers.
What early-career researchers can do now
Documentation is easier when it is routine. Keep a quarterly file with links, dates, and one-line descriptions. Save editor emails, event programs, and course adoption notes. Ask a collaborator or supervisor to confirm a role in writing while the details are fresh. Do not wait until the promotion file is due to reconstruct three years of communication work from memory.
The larger argument is about institutional recognition. Science communication is not a decorative addition to a research career. At its best, it is a form of scholarly practice with public artifacts and verifiable standards. US promotion committees do not need to reward visibility for its own sake. They can reward the work that makes research legible, checkable, and usable. That work belongs in the file.
