"Teaching capital"- a sociological analysis of medical educator portfolios for promotion.

Medical educator portfolios (MEP) are increasingly recognized as a tool for developing and documenting teaching performance in Health Professions Education. However, there is a need to better understand the complex interplay between institutional guidelines and how teachers decode those guidelines and assign value to teaching merits. To gain a deeper understanding of this dynamic, this study employed a sociological analysis to understand how medical educators aspiring to professorships use MEPs to display their teaching merits and how cultural capital is reflected in these artefacts. We collected 36 medical educator portfolios for promotion from a large research-intensive university and conducted a deductive content analysis using institutional guidelines that distinguished between mandatory (accounting for the total body of teaching conducted) and optional content (arguing for pedagogical choices and evidencing the quality, respectively). Our analysis showed that the portfolios primarily included quantifiable data about teaching activities, e.g., numbers of students, topics and classes taught. Notably, they often lacked evidence of quality and scholarship of teaching. Looking at these findings through a Bourdieusian lens revealed that teachers in this social field exchange objectified evidence of hours spent on teaching into teaching capital recognized by their institution. Our findings highlight how institutional guidelines for MEPs construct a pedagogical battlefield, where educators try to decode and exchange the "right" and recognized teaching capital. This indicates that MEPs reflect the norms and practices of the academic field more than individual teaching quality.

Altmetric score, reads, and citations in paediatric cardiology: do they correlate and what do they mean?

INTRODUCTION: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether Altmetric score, number of reads, and citations for paediatric cardiology manuscripts correlate with one another. A secondary objective was to determine the extent to which factors mediated citation number for paediatric cardiology manuscripts. METHODS: Data for this study came from manuscripts published in Cardiology in the Young (2010-2021). Data were extracted by using data shared on the journal website. Spearman's correlation analyses were conducted between manuscript reads, citations, and Altmetric score. Regression analyses were conducted with number of citations as the dependent variable and year of publication, publication type, number of reads, and Altmetric score as independent variables. RESULTS: A total of 2642 manuscripts were included in the final analyses. Reads and citations had poor correlation (r-value 0.32); reads and Altmetric score had negligible correlation (r-value 0.26); and Altmetric score and citations had negligible correlation (r-value 0.07). Year of publication was independently associated with number of citations (ß -0.95, p-value <0.01). Manuscript type was independently associated with number of citations (ß 1.04, p-value <0.01). Number of reads was independently associated with citations (ß 0.01, p-value <0.01). Altmetric score was independently associated with number of citations (ß 0.05, p-value <0.01). CONCLUSION: This study describes the correlation of reads, citations, and Altmetric score in manuscripts published in Cardiology in the Young, demonstrating poor correlation, at best, between these metrics. Each bibliometric index seems to represent a different phenomenon of manuscript consumption. No single bibliometric index in isolation offers ample representation of manuscript consumption.

American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) social media committee workgroup: best practices for the use of social media in emergency radiology.

Social media has become integrated within the profession of medicine, and emergency radiology has inevitably felt the impact of its presence. Emergency radiologists are encouraged to consider the advantages of embracing the digital era and the benefits it may bring to our careers. We aim to present the best practice guidelines for emergency radiologists and radiology departments. This paper is a product of the American Society of Emergency Radiology Social Media (ASER) Committee workgroup and represents the best practices of the society.

Influences of the Social Media Continuum Model in Radiology: Theory and Reality.

Social media utilization has been growing exponentially worldwide and has created a thriving venue for radiologists and the profession of radiology to engage in on both the academic and social levels. The aim of this article is to conduct updated literature review and address a gap in the literature by introducing a simple classification for social media utilization and a new theoretical model to outline the role and potential value of social media in the realm of radiology. We propose classifying social media through usage-driven and access-driven indices. Furthermore, we discuss the interdependency of radiologists, other physicians and non-physician stakeholders, scientific journals, conferences/meetings and the general public in an integrated social media continuum model. With the ongoing sub-specialization of radiology, social media helps mitigate the physical barriers of making connections with peers and audiences which would have otherwise been unfeasible. The constant evolution and diversification of social media platforms necessitates a novel approach to better understand its role through a radiological lens. With the looming fear of 'ancillary service' labelling, social media could be the golden plate to halt the path towards commoditization of radiology.

Gender differences in publication in emergency medicine journals.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have suggested gender disparities in both pay and academic promotion which may adversely affect salary and career progression for female physicians. The areas of research output, funding, and authorship have not been fully and systematically examined in the emergency medicine literature. We hypothesize that gender differences may exist in research output, impact, authorship, and funding. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study examining all published articles in the top three emergency medicine journals as determined by Impact Factor between February 2015 and February 2018. We compared the authorship, number of citations of each article, funding, and h-index of each author by gender. RESULTS: Of the 10,118 authors representing 4166 original articles in our sample, 7562 (74.7%) were male and 2556 (25.3%) were female, with females underrepresented relative to the known proportion of female emergency medicine faculty. Males were proportionally more likely to be last authors (OR 1.65, 95% CI, 1.47-1.86) and less likely to be first authors than females (OR 0.85, 95% CI, 0.77-0.94). No difference in proportions of males and females in terms of being named as having funding was found (OR 1.02, 95% CI, 0.78-1.35). Males had higher h-indexes than females (5 vs. 3, p < .001) as well as a higher average number of citations (OR 1.068, 95% CI, 1.018-1.119). CONCLUSIONS: Males outnumber females in terms of numbers of publications, but also in number of citations, h-index, and last authorship. Future studies on physician gender disparities in emergency medicine need to account for these population differences.

Women empowerment in anaesthesia research and clinical practice: meeting report from the British Journal of Anaesthesia Women in Anaesthesia Research symposium.

The Women in Anaesthesia Research Symposium (Prato, Italy; 4 June, 2019), supported by the British Journal of Anaesthesia in collaboration with Monash University, was organised to discuss challenges facing women in anaesthesia clinical practice and research. We provide an overview of institutional or departmental measures that were proposed during the symposium that may empower women in anaesthesia today.

Academic productivity in surgical oncology: Where is the bar set for those training the next generation?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Promotion and tenure are important milestones for academic surgical oncologists. The aim of this study was to quantify academic metrics associated with rank in surgical oncologists training the next generation. METHODS: Faculty were identified from accredited surgical oncology fellowships in the United States. Scopus was used to obtain the number of publications/citations and h-index values. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORT website was used to identify funding history. RESULTS: Of the 319 surgeons identified, complete rank information was obtained for 308. The majority of faculty were men (70%) and only 11% of full professors were women. The median h-index values were 7, 17, and 39 for assistant, associate, and full professors, respectively. While 50% of full professors had a history of NIH funding, only 26% had RO1s and 20% had current NIH funding. Using multivariate analysis, years in practice, h-index, and a history of NIH funding were associated with academic rank (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Objective benchmarks, such as the median h-index and NIH funding, provide additional insights for both junior faculty and leadership into the productivity needed to attain promotion to the next academic rank for surgical oncologists.

Documenting your career as an educator electronically.

Academic radiologists on the clinician-educator track are required to provide a teaching portfolio as well as a curriculum vitae (CV) for academic promotion. The specific components of a teaching portfolio vary slightly depending on the institution. Traditionally academicians have collected the necessary documentation in paper format, often stuffing them in a binder or a desk drawer. However in the digital age most academic works are readily available in electronic format and can be accessed online. An electronic portfolio is the ideal method to efficiently organize this digital material. In this article, we describe the specific advantages of an online academic portfolio, explain how to set one up and review many options available to build an online electronic portfolio.

Advancing scholarship by publishing curriculum as an e-book.

Background: Medical educators provide service by developing curricula and writing learning material. In addition, academic institutions expect medical educators to publish scholarship to be considered for promotion and academic advancement. Unfortunately, educators may receive limited time to execute these duties and expectations. One way medical educators can streamline their workload is by publishing educational coursework they have previously written into an e-book through an online publisher. This allows them to transform educational service they have already completed into scholarship required for academic recognition, thus maximizing the efficient use of their time. Intervention: Publishing educational material as an e-book requires four steps. First, medical educators must determine which of their educational materials is best suited for publishing as an e-book. Second, educators must rank the features of each e-book publisher and choose the one that best meets their needs. Third, the educational material must be adapted as a manuscript and submitted for publication. Finally, the e-book must be advertised, promoted, and distributed to its intended audience. In addition, the success of the project should be evaluated. To illustrate this process, we describe the steps we took to publish the learning material we created for our internal medicine residents into an e-book. Lessons Learned: The overall process took approximately 3 months and went smoothly. For future publications, we would determine better ways to track the number of downloads of the e-book, ensure all of our images are adequately large, and consider the use of academic, rather than commercial e-book publishers.

Lower Rates of Promotion of Generalists in Academic Medicine: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey.

BACKGROUND: Prior cross-sectional research has found that generalists have lower rates of academic advancement than specialists and basic science faculty. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine generalists relative to other medical faculty in advancement and academic productivity. DESIGN: In 2012, we conducted a follow-up survey (n = 607) of 1214 participants in the 1995 National Faculty Survey cohort and supplemented survey responses with publicly available data. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were randomly selected faculty from 24 US medical schools, oversampling for generalists, underrepresented minorities, and senior women. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were (1) promotion to full professor and (2) productivity, as indicated by mean number of peer-reviewed publications, and federal grant support in the prior 2 years. When comparing generalists with medical specialists, surgical specialists, and basic scientists on these outcomes, we adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity, effort distribution, parental and marital status, retention in academic career, and years in academia. When modeling promotion to full professor, we also adjusted for publications. KEY RESULTS: In the intervening 17 years, generalists were least likely to have become full professors (53%) compared with medical specialists (67%), surgeons (66%), and basic scientists (78%, p < 0.0001). Generalists had a lower number of publications (mean = 44) than other faculty [medical specialists (56), surgeons (57), and basic scientists (83), p < 0.0001]. In the prior 2 years, generalists were as likely to receive federal grant funding (26%) as medical (21%) and surgical specialists (21%), but less likely than basic scientists (51%, p < 0.0001). In multivariable analyses, generalists were less likely to be promoted to full professor; however, there were no differences in promotion between groups when including publications as a covariate. CONCLUSIONS: Between 1995 and 2012, generalists were less likely to be promoted than other academic faculty; this difference in advancement appears to be related to their lower rate of publication.