Making the invisible visible: A global examination of careers and recognition for Imaging Scientists in core facilities

Abstract Imaging facilities underpin a growing share of modern life‐science research, yet the career conditions and scholarly recognition of the Imaging Scientists in core facilities who design, deliver, and interpret imaging research remain uneven. This mismatch has previously been shown to risk loss of expertise, reduced service quality, and weaken long‐term sustainability of shared research capabilities. To provide an evidence base for practical change, we synthesise findings from two complementary international community surveys run by Global BioImaging: a ‘Top 5’ survey on career development and job conditions (>290 responses spanning 43 countries) and an authorship&acknowledgement survey examining how publication credit is assigned for imaging‐related contributions of core facility staff (>330 responses spanning 43 countries). Across both surveys, respondents consistently link limited recognition to constrained career prospects. The career survey highlights recurring bottlenecks around progression routes, job stability and attractiveness, access to professional development, and the day‐to‐day consequences of being perceived primarily as service providers rather than scientific partners. The authorship&acknowledgement survey documents substantial variability in credit practices across facilities, disciplines, and regions, with many respondents reporting uncertainty about expectations, difficulty initiating credit discussions, and concerns about bias and power dynamics. Taken together, the results suggest a reinforcing cycle: inconsistent credit reduces visibility and leverage for Imaging Scientists in core facilities, which in turn entrenches fragile career pathways and inhibits retention. We translate these findings into targeted, stakeholder‐specific actions. Recommendations focus on defining career paths that match facility roles, aligning evaluation with the full range of facility outputs (including methods, data, software, and training), and ensuring that institutions, funders, publishers, and research teams share responsibility for fair and consistent credit.