Rethinking team science metrics through Collaborative Guideposts

Introduction: The increasing reliance on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams has reshaped how science is conducted, yet evaluating the success of such teams remains a persistent challenge. Traditional metrics, such as publication counts, impact factors, and citation indices, fail to capture the full scope of team contributions, particularly in contexts where success may be defined by community engagement, mentorship, or long-term collaboration. Methods: In this Perspective, we introduce Collaborative Guideposts, a framework designed to align success metrics with a team's organizing priorities. We illustrate this approach through two contrasting team models from a biostatistical collaboration center: Team A, a time-bound, community-focused group emphasizing rapid deliverables and public health partnerships, and Team B, a mentorship-driven, development-focused group prioritizing capacity-building and long-term scholarly growth. Results: From these cases, we derive four Collaborative Guideposts: Time Perspective, Unit of Assessment, Desired Outcomes, and Sustainability. These Guideposts provide a structured yet flexible way to capture team success. Discussion: By grounding existing evaluation in Guideposts that reflect team-specific goals, this framework supports more accurate and meaningful assessments of collaborative impact. Our contribution responds to calls for validated models of team science by offering a pragmatic, adaptable framework that bridges theory and practice, enabling both immediate evaluation and long-term sustainability of scientific collaborations.