Writing up some community science results & #agu20 discussions have me thinking about the need for easier modes to legitimize science than publication if a goals is to broadly scale collaboration. 1/

One way could be validating approaches methods & using a review process, but sharing community aligned products & iteration

Other thoughts? We gain trust with new audiences by partnering not publication, & capacity is built by applying research on leadership/teams/culture/networks & researching new models. But the science that underpins decisions must be rigorous to scale/believe/inform policy

At the Collaboration, Convergence, & Justice session folks identified projects as evidence of success (over journal articles, graduate training, curriculum & more). Projects will succeed if they are valued for products that move these three areas forward.

This includes research on capacity building, methods, disciplinary advances, communication, JEDI, but also community outcomes & the work to achieve them