Remember to consider the academic field or issue in question when evaluating the scientist’s credibility/expertise.

Strength of Evidence

for Criterion

Criterion for scientist

Absent/

      Modest

Adequate/

Very Good

Outstanding

Formal education  (PhD, post-doc, visiting scientist, sabbatical, etc.)

Publications  (peer reviewed, number of, Impact Factor, citation

              record, review articles, books/book chapters, currency,

               reputation of collaborators)

Grants & funding sources (number, $, years funded, national vs in-house; U.S. science:  NSF, NIH, USDA= national level; whether

            source is potential conflict of interest)

Professional employment now/past  (college/university, state or

            federal agency; “think-tank,” politically active group)

Scientific awards & honors  (endowed/distinguished chairs, HHMI

           scientist, national/international recognition: Lasker, Nobel;

            National Academy of Sciences (NAS) membership, Fulbright)

Invited talks (for whom, what level (national, regional, etc.)),

           keynote address) e.g., Gordon Conference

Blue-ribbon panel, advisory board, etc. (national/international level)

Grant panel/study section (NIH, NSF, other high-level agencies)

Reviewer for journals (high impact factor), academic press books

Editorship, Editorial Board member

Scientific society elected leadership service

University/college committees

Mass media  (interviews w/ major news agencies, documentaries,

            TV show, etc., nationally/internationally; featured in top

            science journals—on cover or special report)

Courses taught/students trained  (UG/graduate/postdoc etc.)

Consultancy  (consider reputation/potential bias of group/person)

Webpage  (bias or agenda, political/religious leaning)

Criterion for issue

Scientific consensus  (also consider source for this info)

Researcher(s)’ reputation in the field