(1/6) Publications, patents, awards, etc. are a side-effect of the broader mission. True scientific impact is measured by:

1. How well are your students/those you mentored doing? Did they get good placement after leaving your group?
#chemtwitter #realtimechem #AcademicChatter https://twitter.com/garmiregroup/status/1330019565632425984

(2/6) Assuming they left in good standing of course, if the students/mentees land quality positions, then impact is very high.
If they aren’t finding quality positions, then this reflects poorly on the mentor. For they have failed in their most basic job duty of being a mentor.

(3/6) 2. High-impact research is often the kind that is being adopted by other academic, industry, and government labs widely, especially in the form of application-based science. If other labs or people are using stuff you invented, then that’s very impactful.

(4/6) 3. I’ll tell you what high scientific impact is not necessarily: Publishing papers in high impact factor journals.

I know everyone wants to do this in order to pad their CV or to receive the proverbial pat on the back. It’s human nature, and we are all guilty of it.

(5/6) But I’ve seen a lot of garbage published in high IF journals that will have zero practical applications. Politics also sometimes plays a role to get papers published in these journals.
The truth is that in many jobs, the best work will never be published openly anyway.

(6/6) So for me personally, if those I mentor do well, and if the research we do is being used elsewhere by other groups, then I know things are going right. I don’t need awards, papers, patents, and pats on the back, to convince me. All of that stuff just happens as a by-product