Careful when evaluating graduate students based on publications. A graduate student can write a great paper, but, for some random reason, it can still be rejected. Graduate students are in especially vulnerable positions with respect to how they are evaluated, both in terms of their training experience and career prospects. Therefore, it is better to focus on submissions, which are more under the student’s control, rather than acceptances.

Holding someone responsible for something they can’t control leads to issues.

I would argue similarly that faculty should be evaluated based on time put in to studying substantial problems and submissions rather than publications, citations, etc. Possibly, then, also, there would be less outcome-focused advising of graduate students.

More broadly, when outcomes depend on randomness, it’s best to evaluate individuals for process rather than outcome.

This comes up in how we evaluate healthcare providers, too. A great medical decision can still lead to a bad outcome. A focus on outcomes leads to self-defensive medicine, where the provider minimizes their own maximum loss, which is often unrelated to the patient’s expected loss.

Ultimately, as a society, we want better graduate training, better research, and better healthcare decisions. It’s possible to track overall outcomes and develop strategies on average while still rewarding individuals for process rather than result, creating the healthy training and working environments in which human ingenuity, creativity, and compassion thrive.