Premium
Academic productivity in surgical oncology: Where is the bar set for those training the next generation?
Author(s) -
LaRocca Christopher J.,
Wong Paul,
Eng Oliver S.,
Raoof Mustafa,
Warner Susanne G.,
Melstrom Laleh G.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of surgical oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.201
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1096-9098
pISSN - 0022-4790
DOI - 10.1002/jso.25143
Subject(s) - medicine , accreditation , scopus , promotion (chess) , productivity , medical education , index (typography) , rank (graph theory) , family medicine , medline , political science , mathematics , combinatorics , politics , world wide web , computer science , law , economics , macroeconomics
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.