The Medical Writing Center Model in an Academic Teaching Hospital.

Editing services within academic health centers are uncommon, and few studies have reported on their impact. In this article, we describe our medical writing center's editing service for faculty and trainees at a pediatric teaching hospital and associated outcomes of scholarly products (e.g., manuscripts and grants) over an 8-year period. Data for manuscripts and grant proposals edited by the writing center from 2015 through 2022 were collected electronically from our service request database. Outcome data on publications and grant proposals were regularly collected up to 12 months post-submission. Users were also asked if the writing center edits were helpful, improved readability, and if they planned to use the service in the future. From 2015 through 2022, the writing center received 697 requests, 88.4% to edit a document. Of the documents edited, 81.3% of manuscripts and 44.4% of grant proposals were successfully published or funded. When rating their experience, 97.8% of respondents rated the edits "helpful," 96.7% indicated the edits "improved readability," and 99.3% stated they planned to use the writing center in the future. Our results showed steady use of the writing center and high satisfaction with services. A writing center can be an effective tool to support psychology faculty development.

Gender differences in scholarly productivity of early-career transfusion medicine physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Promotion in academic medicine requires evidence of the creation and dissemination of scholarly output, primarily through peer-reviewed publications. Studies demonstrate that scholarly activity and impact are lower for women physicians than for men physicians, especially during the early stages of their academic careers. This report reviewed physicians' academic productivity after passing their Blood Banking/Transfusion Medicine (BBTM) subspecialty exam to determine if gender discrepancies exist. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was designed to determine trends in scholarly activity for women physicians versus men physicians in BBTM. Indexed publications were reviewed using iCite, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Portfolio Analysis tool, from 1 January 2017 to 1 December 2021, for BBTM examinees who passed the sub-speciality fellowship exam in the years 2016 through 2018. RESULTS: Overall, women physicians had statistically significant fewer total career publications (median 6 vs. 9 cumulative papers, p = 0.03). Women published at a lower rate after passing BBTM boards, which was not statistically significant (0.7 vs. 1.3 publications per year). Other statistically significant findings include fewer early-career BBTM women physicians were first authors compared with men physicians (p = 0.03) and impact as assessed by relative citation ratio was higher for men (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that there are gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact on early-career BBTM physicians. Given that this cohort of BBTM physicians are early-career professionals, the significant difference in first authorship publications between women and men physicians is especially concerning. Publication metrics should be followed to ensure equitable research environments for early-career BBTM physicians.

Changing the Culture: Increasing and Sustaining Anesthesiology Resident Physician Publication Rates.

Background: Academic inquiry is foundational to the advancement of medicine and resident training and must be demonstrated to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Past attempts at increasing publication rates have failed to identify educational best practice models. Our aim was to increase resident publication rates via culture and value changes that are universally implementable, affordable, effective, and sustainable. Methods: In 2018, a multifaceted initiative was implemented to shift departmental values and foster a culture of academic productivity. This culture change stressed the value of scientific publication through frequent, consistent messaging from department leaders. In addition, residents were provided the freedom to choose their scholarly activities. In this retrospective cohort innovation, resident authors were identified for 4 academic years before and after the intervention and publication rates were determined (2014-2018 vs 2018-2022). Resident authors and publications per resident per year were compared using descriptive statistics and Student t test. Results: The pre- and postintervention groups included 38 and 37 residents, respectively. Resident-authored publications increased from 7 preintervention to 24 postintervention, representing 343% of baseline. Mean ± SD publications per resident per year similarly increased 357% from 0.183 ± 0.16 to 0.654 ± 0.11 postintervention. Unpaired t test analysis demonstrated a significant difference in total publications per year (P = .002) and authorship rate (P = .003). Conclusions: A multifaceted academic initiative resulted in a threefold increase in resident publication rates. This initiative demonstrates that local advocacy by leaders, freedom of choice for authors, and supportive departmental culture are driving factors in publication rates.

The state of diversity among consultant neurologists in the United Kingdom.

Equitable representation is key for successful clinical and research work. Inequalities in gender, skin colour, and education have been found among professionals in many medical, surgical and academic fields, but have not been examined yet in the current UK neurologists' workforce. This cross-sectional study examined whether there are disparities in gender, perceived skin colour, education, academic productivity, and career progression among UK neurologists. The names of consultant neurologists working in the UK anytime between December 2021 and March 2022 were found via an online search. Online data were collected regarding education, research activity, academic productivity, impact and progression. A total of 1010 consultant neurologists were found to be working in the UK. There was predominance of men at consultant level, with a university affiliation, and with a full professor position. All 24 female full professors had white skin colour. There were no skin colour or gender disparities in currently being affiliated with a top university, obtaining a Master's degree, or duration between medical degree obtainment and becoming full professors. However, less black or brown neurologists had obtained a PhD, were consultants, andit took them a longer time from medical school graduation until becoming consultants.Less females were currently affiliated with a university and had obtained their medical degree from a top university. There were also skin colour and gender disparities in bibliometrics. In conclusion, this study revealed that there are gender, skin colour, education, academic productivity, and career progression gaps among UK consultant neurologists, which need to be addressed.

Review of the demographic and educational profiles of abdominal imaging fellowship program directors in the United States.

PURPOSE: To evaluate demographics, academic backgrounds, and scholarly activities of Program Directors (PDs) in Abdominal Imaging Fellowships in the United States (US), emphasizing gender representation, international origins, and academic milestones. METHODS: A list of Fellowships in Abdominal Imaging programs in the US was obtained from the Society of Abdominal Radiology. The search was expanded using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Data for PDs were sourced from program websites, Healthgrades, Doximity, and Elsevier's Scopus. Metrics such as age, gender, education, academic rank, additional qualifications, prior leadership roles, publications, and h-indices were analyzed using R software. A two-tailed unpaired t-test was used to calculate the difference in means of scholarly activity between male and female PDs. RESULTS: 113 programs were identified: South (36.28%), Northeast (25.66%), Mid-West (20.35%), West (17.69%). Of 107 PDs, 54% male, 41% female, and average age 48 ± 9.4 years. 66.6% were US graduates, 29.2% were international graduates. Most were Assistant Professors (36.28%). 19.46% had degrees like M.P.H. or M.B.A. 45% had prior leadership roles. Average year of residency graduation was 2007. Mean publication count was 54.16, and mean h-index was 14.663. Male PDs had higher publication counts and h-indices than female PDs (p= 0.009 and p= 0.0019 respectively). CONCLUSION: In Abdominal Imaging Fellowship programs in the US, there is an increasing representation of females in Program Director roles. However, research led by female PDs remains less prevalent. The field of Abdominal Imaging values contributions from international graduates and insights from Assistant Professors.

Gender Differences in Research Productivity of Academic Physicians Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: The gendered impact of the COVID-19 on scientific productivity has been primarily studied in nonclinical academic fields. We investigated the gendered effect of the pandemic on diverse measures of research participation among physician faculty, who experienced an increase in clinical duties concomitant with pandemic-era challenges to research. Materials and Methods: Physician faculty employed in both 2019 (prepandemic) and 2021 (pandemic era) were identified at one U.S. medical school. Annual outcomes included scientific publications, Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved protocols, and extramural funding submissions (funding data were unavailable for 2019). Mixed-effects Poisson regression models compared the pandemic impact by gender. Results: The study included 105 women and 116 men, contributing to 122 publications, 214 IRB protocols, and 99 extramural funding applications. Controlling for potential confounders such as faculty rank and track (tenure vs. nontenure), women's publication count increased by 140% during the pandemic (95% confidence interval [CI]: +40% to +310%, p = 0.001) but was unchanged among men (95% CI: -30% to +50%; p > 0.999). The number of IRB protocols decreased from 2019 to 2021, but to a greater extent among men than women. In 2021, there was no gender difference in the number of extramural funding submissions. Conclusions: Among physician faculty at our medical school, women achieved parity with men on multiple measures of scholarly activity, and women's research productivity outpaced that of men in the same faculty track and rank. Targeted initiatives to support research among women faculty, junior investigators, and clinical investigators may have helped avert exacerbation of prepandemic gender disparities in research participation.

Early Career Publication Trajectory of Male Infertility Fellows During and After Fellowship.

BACKGROUND: Improving evidence-based medicine through research contribution is an important aspect of fellowship training. Prior studies have investigated the research activity of urology fellows during and after fellowship. The main objective of this study was to specifically explore the publication productivity of male infertility fellows both during fellowship and in the first 5 years afterwards. METHODS: The 19 fellowship program directors from the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction were asked to share a list of fellows from 2004 to 2019. Publications from 87 fellows at 12 programs were analyzed. PubMed® was utilized to search for peer-reviewed publications for each fellow during their fellowship and in the first 5 years afterwards. Each publication was classified by publication type (original research, review article, editorial comment, or case report), topic (fertility, testosterone, or other), and author type (sole, first, middle, or last author). RESULTS: Some 87 male infertility fellows were analyzed, and a total of 1608 peer-reviewed publications were identified. Some 662 total publications (41.2%) were written on the topic of fertility during fellowship and in the first 5 years afterwards. Some 554 (34.5%) publications were completed during fellowship, 178 (11.1%) in year 1, 164 (10.2%) in year 2, 220 (13.7%) in year 3, 269 (16.7%) in year 4, and 223 (13.9%) in year 5. The mean number of publications during fellowship was 6.37 (range 0-57). Means for years 1-5 after fellowship were 2.12, 1.95, 2.65, 3.36, and 2.97, respectively. After fellowship, 25.3% of the fellows did not publish again. A significant difference was detected between the group mean number of publications (analysis of variance, ANOVA - p = 0.0001) during fellowship and the 5 years afterwards. There was no significant difference between the group mean number of publications between the 1st and 5th years post-fellowship (ANOVA - p = 0.5919). CONCLUSIONS: As anticipated, male infertility fellows were most productive during fellowship, with relatively stable research production thereafter. Thus, early career support and mentorship remain important to the future academic success of fellows. Future investigation of the relationship between male infertility fellow characteristics and the pursuit of an academic career is warranted.

Academic Productivity of Early Career Transfusion Medicine Specialists: A Workforce Study.

Blood Banking/Transfusion Medicine (BB/TM) specialists oversee all aspects of blood component transfusions and are often involved with apheresis, coagulation, and cellular therapy services as well. This study characterizes the BB/TM workforce to determine the scholarly productivity in the first 3 to 5 years after obtaining board certification and the impact of job type, job location, and academic rank on scholarly productivity. Academic productivity was assessed among individuals passing the American Board of Pathology BB/TM board exam between 2016 and 2018 using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Portfolio Analysis tool, iCite. One hundred and 28 BB/TM specialists were included in the analysis. The majority of BB/TM specialists work in academia, are located in the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic regions, and have a rank of Assistant Professor. Since passing the board exam, 76.5% (98/128) of BB/TM specialists have published papers, with 4.0 (IQR = 1-8) total number of published papers per individual, and 791 total papers amongst the group. The median publications per individual per year since passing boards is 0.9 (IQR = 0.2-2.3) the number of publications per year since passing boards for BB/TM specialists in academia is significantly higher compared to other jobs at 1.33 (IQR, 0.5-2.89, Kruskal-Wallis P = .03) per individual Assistant Professors and Associate Professors (1.3, IQR= 0.4-2.7 and 1.4, IQR = 0.6-3.3, Mann-Whitney test P > .99). BB/TM specialists who passed the board exam between 2016 and 2018 are highly academically productive, especially those working in academia where publications are necessary for promotion. BB/TM physicians are an extensively trained and academically-minded group of practitioners.

Collaborative integration, workplace flexibility and scholarly productivity: Evidence from the COVID-19 outbreak.

In this paper, we exploit the natural experiment of the COVID-19 outbreak and investigate the role of collaborative integration and workplace flexibility in scholarly productivity. Using data on the quantity and quality of the journal and working paper submissions, we first identify a discontinuity pattern in the productivity of Chinese scholars around the Chinese New Year (CNY). Second, we find that COVID-19 has a negative impact on the productivity of Chinese scholars in terms of quantity and quality post-CNY. Furthermore, the short-term detrimental effect on scholarly productivity is induced mainly through the channel of collaborative integration and workplace flexibility due to mitigation policy shocks in terms of social distancing and working-from-home arrangements. The results suggest while advances in virtual communication technologies can facilitate productivity by lowering collaboration costs, virtual team communication cannot be a perfect substitute for face-to-face communication in collaborative integration. In addition, higher workplace flexibility might hinder productivity in sectors relying more on the skills of self-management and discipline.

Fostering student and faculty scholarship in an accelerated three-year medical school.

Background: In acknowledgement of the importance of research competency in academic medicine, an extracurricular student research program and faculty development researcher pathway was developed to promote scholarly productivity at New York University (NYU) Long Island School of Medicine (LISOM), a three-year accelerated Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)-accredited medical school. The aim was to enhance medical students' and faculty scholarly productivity, by creating new training programs targeting research skills and academic collaboration. Impact was assessed by initial review of the extracurricular student research program and faculty development researcher pathway. Methods: Electronic surveys via Google were sent out to all current (n = 72) students on 9/20/2021 and the faculty identified based on their primary appointment to NYU LISOM in the learning management system on 9/17/2021 to determine participation in research, presentation of research findings, satisfaction with the program, and research opportunities for students.  Student scholarly productivity was tracked using PubMed, restricted to search years 2020 through 2022.  For the faculty development researcher pathway, publications were tracked for each participant before and after completion of the program, with pre- and post-completion dates ranging from 2012 through 2020.  Results: Student survey results (29 responses out of 72) indicated 28% of students were involved in research with institutional faculty and 59% were interested in starting a research project. Most students involved in extracurricular research were satisfied with their experience and eight students have publications with faculty.  For the faculty development researcher pathway, 35% of the participants increased publications after program graduation. Conclusions: Outcomes from the student research program and faculty researcher pathway were positive regarding student research engagement and faculty scholarly productivity, though long-term outcomes are yet to be evaluated. Progress will be tracked as students continue through undergraduate and graduate medical education, and as both students and faculty progress throughout their career.

COVID-19 and Gender Differences in Family Medicine Scholarship.

This bibliometric analysis seeks to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted submission rates to Annals of Family Medicine by gender. Women represented 46.3% of all manuscript submissions included in our study (n = 1,964/4,238), spanning from January 1, 2015 to July 15, 2020. The overall volume of submissions increased during COVID-19 in comparison to pre-pandemic months; however, this increase was not evenly distributed among men and women (122% increase vs 101% increase, respectively). In the early months of the pandemic, 244 submissions were authored by men (58.5%), and 173 submissions were authored by women (41.5%). The gap in women's submission rates is troubling, as it suggests they may be at greater risk of falling behind male colleagues during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Landscape of Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts Grant Recipients Over the Past Decade.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the demographics of CORE grant recipients (Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts) over the last decade and evaluate disparity among recipients as compared with otolaryngology overall. To assess whether procurement of a grant predicts pursuit of an academic career. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of grant recipients' bibliometrics. SETTING: Academic medical center. METHODS: The list of recipients of grants from 2010 to 2019 was obtained from the website of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Demographics of recipients were collected through an internet search, including gender, race, residency program, and h-index. Recipients from 2010 were searched to determine current academic faculty rank. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare these factors with otolaryngology overall. RESULTS: The distribution of gender among recipients over the last decade remained nearly constant, with no significant difference versus residents in otolaryngology (P > .05). However, there were significantly more female recipients when adjusted for gender differences in the field overall (P < .01). Asians were relatively overrepresented, while Black and Hispanic residents were underrepresented (P < .01). Many recipients (52.6%) trained at institutions recognized as the best training programs with reputations for quality research output. The h-index of recipients decreased over the last decade (P < .01). The h-index of duplicate winners was significantly higher than those of nonduplicate winners (P < .01). After adjusting for gender and rank, recipients were significantly more likely to hold academic positions (P < .01). CONCLUSION: CORE grants are favorably distributed as related to gender and racial disparities, and recipients frequently go on to achieve high levels of academic success.

Gender Disparity in Academic Gastroenterology: Beginning of the End of the Underrepresentation of Women?

BACKGROUND: Though there are an increasing number of female medical graduates, women remain underrepresented in academic medicine. There have been several reasons to explain this gender disparity, including marital status, number of children, number of hours worked, job flexibility, perceptions of women as inferior leaders, gender bias, sexual harassment, and unsupportive academic climates. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between scholarly productivity and the representation of female gastroenterologists in academia. Specifically, scholarly productivity measured by the h-index and academic rank were explored to determine if there were gender disparities in academic productivity and rank in gastroenterology. METHODS: Gastroenterology departmental listings were obtained from the Fellowship and Residency Interactive Database of the American Medical Association. The Scopus database was used to record each physician's h-index. Statistical analyses were conducted with Wilcoxon rank-sum test, which compared matched samples by academic rank, and ANOVA tests, which compared multiple academic ranks. RESULTS: Out of 1703 academic gastroenterologists, women account for 25% of academic physicians. Women have statistically lower h-indices at the level of Assistant Professor (p = 0.0012), and at the level of Chair (p = 0.01). There was no difference in h-indices between male and female at the rank of Associate Professor and Professor. CONCLUSIONS: While these results mirror patterns appreciated in other fields of medicine, the results at the rank of Chair may suggest that despite the lower h-index compared to their male counterparts, females are perceived as having strong inherent leadership skills outside of academic productivity that are also conducive to leading a department and may be contributing to their rise to Chair.

Does Publication History Predict Future Publication Output in Orthopaedics?

Background The number of publications is widely used as a measure of academic productivity in the field of orthopaedics. How "productive" a physician is has a great influence on consideration for employment, compensation, and promotions. Predictors of potential high-output researchers would be of value to the orthopaedic department and university leadership for new faculty evaluation. Methods The study population included orthopaedic faculty from the top 10 orthopaedic institutions in the United States. Their names and the number of publications at each point in their training (medical school, residency, and fellowship) and early career (first five and 10 years following fellowship) along with a total number of publications to date were collected by using PubMed. Results Strong correlations were seen between publications during total training and publications output in the first five years following fellowship (rs =0.717, P<0.0001). However, no significant correlations were found comparing publications during each stage of training and the first 10 years following fellowship. A moderate positive correlation was found when comparing publications during medical school and residency output (rs =0.401, P<0.0001). Conclusions The data presented here may be utilized by department chairs during the evaluation of faculty and candidates to not interpret the number of publications during training and early career as a gauge of research interest and potential for future publications. Program directors may also use the only moderate correlation between publications in medical school and residency when evaluating applications as support of a more holistic review of applicants to determine research interest.

Strengthening collaborative research and scholarship in a College of Nursing.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to facilitate research collaboration between PhD- and DNP-educated faculty at colleges and schools of nursing. Both types of doctoral-prepared faculty are hired, and their skills and expertise are often different yet complementary. Strengthening collaborations can contribute to new knowledge and the translation of research into practice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to implement four strategies to foster research and scholarship productivity and evaluate the outcomes. METHOD: We implemented four strategies to foster collaboration. Two interactional strategies included Research Exchange (an annual event) and an enhanced matchmaking and mentoring plan. The two organizational strategies implemented were internal research pilot funds and writing clubs. RESULTS: All four approaches have been found to be effective in improving research collaboration and scholarship outcomes, including presentations, manuscripts, and proposals for external funding. Faculty have provided suggestions for further improvements. CONCLUSIONS: National trends indicate that there may be more DNP-prepared faculty than PhD-prepared faculty hired at colleges and schools of nursing. As such, it is useful to develop and purposefully offer approaches such as the four strategies described to enhance research productivity, facilitate career progression, and contribute to improved patient outcomes.

Scholarly Productivity Among Educators in Radiologic Sciences and Other Health Care Professions: A Comparative Approach.

PURPOSE: To compare scholarly productivity among dental hygiene, medical imaging and radiation therapy, medical laboratory science, nursing, and respiratory care educators. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods approach, educators were surveyed to compare their engagement in scholarly activities and identify motivators, employer support measures, and barriers associated with scholarship engagement. Quantitative data were analyzed using percentages, descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis H tests, and Welch F tests. Thematic analyses were performed on the qualitative responses. RESULTS: Of the 360 completed surveys, 295 (81.9%) participants indicated that they engaged in scholarly activities. Medical laboratory science educators wrote significantly more peer-reviewed journal articles than did medical imaging and radiation therapy educators (P = .004). Medical laboratory science educators ranked career advancement as a significantly higher motivator than did nursing educators (P = .045); nursing educators ranked personal satisfaction as a significantly higher motivator than did educators from respiratory care (P = .002) and medical laboratory science (P = .009); and medical laboratory science educators ranked pressure from institution hierarchy as a significantly higher motivator than did dental hygiene educators (P = .005) and medical imaging and radiation therapy educators (P = .043). Thematic analyses revealed that participants consider collaboration to be a motivating factor to engage in scholarship; employer support measures should include guidance with grant writing and funding; and barriers that limit productivity include a lack of time, program faculty, and understanding where to begin. DISCUSSION: Initiatives such as mentoring programs should be implemented to promote collaborative efforts among medical imaging and radiation therapy educators to increase productivity in scholarship, particularly in peer-reviewed publications, and minimize potential barriers. In addition, the ASRT Foundation created new grant tiers for radiologic technologists and radiation therapists who have an interest in conducting research and publishing their results. This opportunity can advance scholarly productivity in the profession. CONCLUSION: Communicating the value of scholarship engagement to medical imaging and radiation therapy educators is important so that the profession can advance to its full potential as a distinct allied health profession.

Fellowship, gender, and scholarly productivity: trends among academic neurosurgeons in the US.

OBJECTIVE: Current data on fellowship choice and completion by neurosurgical residents are limited, especially in relation to gender, scholarly productivity, and career progression. The objective of this study was to determine gender differences in the selection of fellowship training and subsequent scholarly productivity and career progression. METHODS: The authors conducted a quantitative analysis of the fellowship training information of practicing US academic neurosurgeons. Information was extracted from publicly available websites, the Scopus database, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments website. RESULTS: Of 1641 total academic neurosurgeons, 1403 (85.5%) were fellowship trained. There were disproportionately more men (89.9%) compared to women (10.1%). A higher proportion of women completed fellowships than men (p = 0.004). Proportionally, significantly more women completed fellowships in pediatrics (p < 0.0001), neurooncology (p = 0.012), and critical care/trauma (p = 0.001), while significantly more men completed a spine fellowship (p = 0.012). Within those who were fellowship trained, the academic rank of professor was significantly more commonly held by men (p = 0.001), but assistant professor was held significantly more often by women (p = 0.017). The fellowships with the largest mean h-indices were functional/stereotactic, pediatrics, and critical care/trauma. Despite more women completing neurooncology and pediatric fellowships, men had significantly greater h-indices in these subspecialties compared to women. Women had more industry funding awards than men in pediatrics (p < 0.0001), while men had more in spine (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Women were found to have higher rates for fellowship completion compared with their male counterparts, yet had lower scholarly productivity in every subspecialty. Fellowship choice remains unequally distributed between genders, and scholarly productivity and career progression varies between fellowship choice.

Scholarly productivity of faculty in primary care roles related to tenure versus non-tenure tracks.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the number of primary care physicians is critical to overcoming the shortage of healthcare providers. Primary care physicians are increasingly called upon to address not only medical concerns but also behavioral health needs and social determinants of health which requires ongoing research and innovation. This paper evaluated scholarly productivity of faculty in tenure versus non-tenure tracks in primary care roles, defined as family medicine, internal medicine, internal medicine/pediatrics and pediatrics. METHODS: The study included physician faculty in the clinical departments of Brody School of Medicine serving between the 2014-2015 and 2018-2019 academic years. Department, track, and rank at the beginning of each academic year (e.g., 2014-2015) were correlated with having any publications in the following calendar year (e.g., 2015), as determined from a search of the Scopus database. RESULTS: A total of 1620 observations and 542 unique faculty were included in the analysis. As of 2018-2019, 19% percent of primary care faculty were either tenured or on tenure track, as compared to 41% of faculty in other departments (p < 0.001). Primary care departments were also disproportionately staffed by junior faculty (60% as compared to 48% in other departments; p = 0.087). The proportion of faculty with any publications was significantly higher for faculty on the tenure track compared to those not on the tenure track (34% vs. 14%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Academic productivity was lower among non-tenure-track physician faculty, as measured by publication in peer-reviewed journals. This was exacerbated among faculty in primary care departments, who were also more likely to hold non-tenure-track appointments. The loss of tenure-track positions disproportionately impacts scholarly activity in primary care and may be limiting progress in care-oriented research. Findings suggest that providing non-tenure faculty the time and resources to be involved in research, in addition to their clinical work, as well as access to research collaborators and mentors can promote scholarly activity among this group.

Productivity, prominence, and the effects of academic environment.

Faculty at prestigious institutions produce more scientific papers, receive more citations and scholarly awards, and are typically trained at more-prestigious institutions than faculty with less prestigious appointments. This imbalance is often attributed to a meritocratic system that sorts individuals into more-prestigious positions according to their reputation, past achievements, and potential for future scholarly impact. Here, we investigate the determinants of scholarly productivity and measure their dependence on past training and current work environments. To distinguish the effects of these environments, we apply a matched-pairs experimental design to career and productivity trajectories of 2,453 early-career faculty at all 205 PhD-granting computer science departments in the United States and Canada, who together account for over 200,000 publications and 7.4 million citations. Our results show that the prestige of faculty's current work environment, not their training environment, drives their future scientific productivity, while current and past locations drive prominence. Furthermore, the characteristics of a work environment are more predictive of faculty productivity and impact than mechanisms representing preferential selection or retention of more-productive scholars by more-prestigious departments. These results identify an environmental mechanism for cumulative advantage, in which an individual's past successes are "locked in" via placement into a more prestigious environment, which directly facilitates future success. The scientific productivity of early-career faculty is thus driven by where they work, rather than where they trained for their doctorate, indicating a limited role for doctoral prestige in predicting scientific contributions.

Impact of funding allocation on physical therapist research productivity and DPT student graduates: an analysis using panel data.

Financial support for institutional research is relatively stagnant, and thus institutions are likely to seek tuition revenue to offset the costs of research and teaching. It is likely that this has led to increases in tuition driven activities, and thus has limited research activities of academic physical therapy (PT) programs in particular. However, the relationships between sources of program revenue, the number of graduates from PT programs, and the scholarly production of PT faculty have not been studied. The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of types of funding-including research grants and tuition-on the number of physical therapy graduates from each program and the research productivity of physical therapy faculty. Data from 2008 to 2016 were utilized to perform a fixed-effects panel analysis. Panel models created predictions for the number of graduates and the number of peer-reviewed publications for programs from grant funding, annual tuition, and number of funded faculty members. In any given program, a 1% increase in annual tuition is associated with 24% more graduates per year, but a single percentage point increase in the mix of NIH grant funding over other funding types is associated with 8% fewer graduates, all else equal. For every 1% increase in annual tuition, a program can expect to have 41% fewer publications per year. Those institutions with higher numbers of graduates tended to have higher numbers of publications. Higher annual program tuition appears to be associated with both higher numbers of physical therapy graduates and lower levels of publications. Different funding sources have variable effects on degree production and scholarly productivity. Data are self-reported by programs on the Annual Accreditation Report, and cause and effect cannot be established through observational design.