Most researchers like the idea of tenure — especially once they have it. But many others, particularly those pursuing it, are not so thrilled about the way in which it is awarded. Indeed, a system primarily based on publications and citations seems a bit antiquated. It doesn't necessarily reflect the way science is now being done, nor does it reward some professional practices most reasonable people would agree are positive. But a few simple reforms could improve the system.

One of the biggest problems with the current system is that it treats scientists as isolated geniuses, locked in a lab. Intentional or not, this is the basic effect of rewarding first authorship. But science is now more often a collaborative effort, and credit should be spread more equally among participants. It doesn't make sense that someone doing data collection at a telescope or coordinating high-throughput microarray analysis should be left behind just because they seldom have the opportunity to write up the breakthroughs they help to facilitate.

And most scientists agree that some activities beyond publication are also worthwhile. But why should they take the time to mentor thoroughly, teach well or communicate science to the public if they aren't promoted for it?

It would be nice to see such salutary activity quantified, then rewarded. Perhaps there should be a system that rewards mentoring, maybe with bonus points for those who mention career options outside academia, aid networking and have a good track record for finding jobs for their protégés. And as for team players, especially in interdisciplinary projects, how about taking into account how many papers they have made possible, even though they may not have done the primary analysis? Facilitating other people's scientific discoveries and career progress is an important part of the scientific world and should be recognized.