A 5-year analysis of peer-reviewed journal article publications of pharmacy practice faculty members

Best-Practice Strategies for Faculty Evaluations: A Focus on Pharmacy Departments or Divisions with Both Tenure and Nontenure-Track Faculty Members

There are unique challenges associated with the evaluation of faculty in pharmacy departments or divisions that have a mix of nontenure-track and tenure-track faculty members. Such evaluations are intended to provide feedback on performance and personal growth but have the potential to demotivate faculty and add to existing stress if improperly performed. The purpose of this commentary is to suggest best practices for department chairs involved in performing evaluations of faculty in pharmacy departments or divisions that have a mix of nontenure-track and tenure-track faculty members. The paper is intended to help ensure these evaluations not only capture the quality and quantity of each faculty member's full range of activities and responsibilities but also are conducted in a supportive and constructive fashion. This commentary is targeted at new department chairs, new faculty members unfamiliar with academic evaluation processes, and departments contemplating changes in their existing evaluation procedures.

Recommendations for Assessing the Quality of Clinical Faculty Members' Journal Publications

Evaluation of clinical faculty involves an assessment of the quality of their publications in addition to quantity (number) of publications. In contrast to assessing quantity, assessing quality is difficult. The purpose of this paper is to discuss practical considerations and provide recommendations related to quality of publications that clinical faculty members should bear in mind as part of their overall scholarship activity. College and schools of pharmacy may not provide written criteria for assessing quality of publications, so it is important that clinical faculty members seek guidance from their department chair or direct supervisor, experienced colleagues, and formal or informal mentors or advisers. One criterion for assessing quality is whether a publication was evaluated through a peer-review process although there are other considerations including dissemination of the paper via search engines such as PubMed. Clinical faculty also need to consider authorship order on their papers and potential journals for submission.

Scholarly Activity of Tenure-Track Faculty in US Departments of Pharmacy Practice

Objective. To quantitatively determine scholarly activity among tenure-track faculty at US departments of pharmacy practice over a 10-year period.Methods. A search of PubMed was performed for articles by department of pharmacy practice tenure track (DPP-TT) faculty from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2019. DPP-TT faculty working in departments of pharmacy practice were identified through faculty rosters published on the American Association Colleges of Pharmacy website or college or school internet sites. Tenure-track faculty listed as working in a department of pharmacy practice, clinical pharmacy, or pharmacotherapy were included. An objective third party confirmed the data obtained. Each publication was classified by scope (eg, clinical pharmacology, health economics/outcome research, biomedical informatics, basic science, review, editorial/letter, or case report). DPP-TT faculty productivity was calculated by dataset frequency distribution. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance were used to compare data across demographic strata.Results. One hundred thirty-seven institutions employed 2147 pharmacy practice faculty. These faculty published 20,059 (9.3±16.3/10 years/faculty member) papers. Six institutions had no tenure-track designation. There was a 2.5-fold increase in publication rates from 2010-2019 (P < 0001). Public vs private schools' productivity was 207.8 vs 69.0 publications per institution, respectively (P < 001). The ratio of male to female DPP-TT faculty per institution was 62% to 38%, with male faculty publishing an average of 12.1±19.1 each, and female faculty publishing an average of 7.4±13.8 each (P < 0001). Faculty ranks were 37% assistant professor; 36% associate professor; and 26% professor, with an average of 4.0±7.3, 8.6±12.4, and 17.4±24.6 publications per faculty, respectively. Regionally, US pharmacy practice faculty located in the West produced the most publications, followed by those in the Northeast, South, and Midwest (P < 0001).Conclusions. These national DPP-TT publication data demonstrate that scholarly productivity increased from 2010 through 2019, across a wide variety of publication scopes.

Evaluation of Scholarship Motivators and Barriers for Non-Tenure-Track Faculty in a Department of Pharmacy Practice

The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) Standards 2016 set explicit expectations for faculty scholarship. However, many non-tenure-track faculty have struggled with the scholarship portion of the academic tripart mission of clinical practice, teaching, and scholarship. Therefore, we sought to identify themes regarding the barriers, motivators, and potential solutions associated with non-tenure-track faculty scholarship. Four focus group interviews were held via videoconference during July 2021, which consisted of non-tenure-track faculty within the TTUHSC Jerry H. Hodge School of Pharmacy. Each focus group answered a standard script of questions that were evaluated for face validity over a 30-60 min session. Twenty-two non-tenure-track faculty members (47% response) participated in one of the four focus group interviews. The four common barriers were insufficient time, lack of acknowledgment, obscurity of scholarship expectations, and a lack of resources and support. Scholarship's lasting impact on academia, students, and clinical practice was the one common motivator identified by the groups. The barriers identified were not unique to our faculty, despite the unique four-city structure of our program. Actions have continued to be taken to help address the barriers and potential solutions identified by the focus groups. In summary, our results echo that non-tenure-track faculty need more time and training to help them feel like they can meet institutional scholarship requirements.

Scholarly maturation and other factors supporting publishing productivity in educational scholarship for clinical faculty

INTRODUCTION

In order to advance curricula and faculty career progression, it would be helpful to increase publishing success and productivity in educational scholarship. The objective of this study was to describe the key factors and strategies that contribute to publishing success and productivity in the publication of educational scholarship by clinical pharmacy faculty.

METHODS

Participants were identified from 2007 to 2016 PubMed and Science Direct publication records or by having received the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Emerging Teaching Scholars Award. Participants were required to have an active clinical practice and not have administrative positions or doctor of philosophy training. Qualitative data were gathered through dyadic and individual interviews and analyzed to identify core factors contributing to publishing success and productivity.

RESULTS

Nine clinical pharmacy faculty participated in dyadic or individual interviews, including seven associate professors and two professors. Participants' teaching and learning publications covered two to 13 topic areas, and participants had 20 to 70 unique co-authors. Five core factors and 17 strategies were identified as supporting publishing success and productivity in educational scholarship. The five factors included inputs/assets, the team, the project, the process, and scholarly maturation.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants' responses confirm some conceptions, while also disputing common misconceptions that may discourage clinical faculty from pursuing educational scholarship. Fundamental research skill development is required in educational scholarship as in other scholarly areas. In addition, the roles of team building, receiving and providing mentorship, and the development of small significant networks merit further investigation as assets to productivity.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications of Pharmacy Practice Department Chairs

Objective. To perform a bibliometric analysis of pharmacy practice department chairs at US schools and colleges of pharmacy to determine factors associated with their level of scholarly productivity.Methods. Scopus was searched for all publications by pharmacy practice chairs from all pharmacy schools through August 11, 2020. Publication metrics (total number of publications and citations and the Hirsch-index (h-index), and year of first publication), as well as characteristics of the individual chair and institution were collected. Characteristics were compared across groups. A generalized linear model was used to determine the correlation between the total number of publications and h-index to school ranking by US News & World Report (USNWR).Results. One hundred forty-one pharmacy practice chairs were identified. The majority were male and at the rank of professor, with a similar proportion from public and private institutions. The median total number of publications and citations was 19 and 247, respectively, with a median h-index of eight. Compared with female chairs, male chairs had a higher median total of publications and citations and a higher h-index. Chairs at public institutions had a higher median total of publications and citations and a higher publication rate, h-index, and m quotient. The USNWR ranking for the school was significantly correlated with total publications and the h-index.Conclusion. Pharmacy practice chairs vary significantly in their scholarship productivity, although those at institutions with a larger emphasis on research were more prolific. Observed differences in the publication metrics of male and female chairs warrants further study to determine possible explanations for this finding and its potential impact.

Meta-research in pharmacy: Time for a look in the mirror

The volume of the biomedical literature continues to expand at a substantial rate. The research literature surrounding pharmaceutical services is no different. Due in part to events in the recent past, researchers, consumers, funders, and policymakers have raised concerns about the credibility, transparency, and potential waste in the global research enterprise. Meta-research, or research on research, provides a way to examine the efficiency, quality, and potential bias in the overall research ecosystem. The field of meta-research is a relatively new but rapidly growing field that has seen many applications in biomedical research. Applications in pharmacy research, however, are still developing. The goals of this commentary are to introduce pharmacy researchers to the concept of meta-research, discuss several examples of meta-research in pharmacy, and motivate the importance of sustained meta-research efforts in pharmacy.

Stimulating and sustaining scholarly activity at teaching-intensive institutions

INTRODUCTION

Research and scholarship are core elements of the academic mission. Yet fulfilling institutional and accreditation requirements for scholarly activity can be challenging, particularly for teaching-intensive institutions. This paper describes strategies for employing a teacher-scholar model to stimulate and sustain scholarly activity.

METHODS

Metrics of scholarly productivity were programmatically assessed and reported for at least five years following implementation of sixteen different strategic initiatives at three teaching-intensive colleges of pharmacy. Data reported included publications (original peer-reviewed publications, case reports, review articles), presentations (posters, podiums, and continuing education sessions), peer-reviewed published abstracts, grants awarded, and total extramural funding per annum. Faculty and student engagement in scholarship was indicated by authorship on at least one scholarly work.

RESULTS

Broad increases in metrics of scholarly productivity were observed, while the timing and degree of change varied (1.4-fold to 10.4-fold, across all institutions, all years). Notably, the most robust growth was observed in grantsmanship and the number of faculty and student contributors to scholarly works. A key observation was that increased scholarly output was sustained, as during the most recent three-year period publications increased 1.6-fold, grants and extramural funding increased 3.4- and 15.8-fold, respectively, and faculty and student contributors increased 1.8- and 4.5-fold, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, these data point to a substantive, detailed approach for increasing scholarship at diverse, teaching-intensive institutions by implementing cost-conscious strategies, including clear ties between scholarly effort/productivity and faculty performance/advancement, strong faculty development and mentoring, institutional commitments to infrastructure and research budgets, and student engagement in scholarly activities.

Scholastic synergy: A team prototype for pharmacy faculty engagement in education, research, and service

INTRODUCTION

Many clinical faculty members are challenged by competing factors of scholarly productivity, education, service obligations, and patient care. A team-based approach has the potential to synergistically increase productivity and mitigate factors associated with burnout.

METHODS

The purpose of this report is to discuss a prototype for a small, team-based, practice-oriented collaborative approach to advancing critical care pharmacy practice through research and education. Productivity was evaluated in the areas of scholarship and teaching.

RESULTS

This team was formed in 2017 and includes five critical care faculty across four campuses from a single academic institution. This collaborative has published peer-reviewed articles, secured grant funding, and developed novel teaching modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges encountered include timeline adherence, development of uniform data collection processes, clarifying roles and expectations for different projects, and authorship. This team may act as a prototype for clinical faculty teams to enhance engagement and scholarship productivity in a practice-based setting.

Factors influencing pharmacy faculty behavior, perceptions, and challenges with determining authorship credit

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to identify challenges in determining authorship and author order, factors and criteria that influence behavior in determining authorship and author order, and beliefs about authorship and familiarity with guidelines among pharmacy faculty.

METHODS

An online survey was emailed to faculty from three groups of schools categorized by degree of external research funding. Academic discipline and rank, tenure status, years in rank, and gender were queried. Questions were created to determine frequency of authorship justification and author order by specific factors. Power pressures experienced when determining authorship were queried. Three case studies were also included to determine behavior for authorship and authorship order.

RESULTS

A total of 295 usable responses were received (30.2% response rate). A majority of faculty experienced power pressures when determining authorship. Justifying authorship for supervision of student projects and statistical analysis was common. Quantity and quality of contributions were the most common reason for justifying order. Writing substantial sections of an article was ranked the most important component in determining author order. Differences in justifying authorship based on promotion and tenure pressures were noted by academic rank, tenure status, and academic discipline. Familiarity with International Committee for Medical Journal Editors guidelines did not appear to influence behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a plurality of perceptions and attitudes among faculty in relation to authorship. A model for recognition of contributions is needed. More structured guidance in concert with moral and ethical principles would help to clarify how to best establish authorship and author order.

Equity for and Inclusion of Non-Tenure-Track Pharmacy Faculty Within Academia

Although there are at least twice as many non-tenure-track first-time pharmacy faculty as tenured and tenure-track first-time pharmacy faculty entering academia based on data collected from 2013 to 2019, there are ongoing equity, inclusion, and advancement issues between these categories of faculty that require consideration. Contracts with clear descriptions of responsibilities are needed along with regular evaluations and promotion opportunities based on the faculty member's performance of the assigned responsibilities, appropriate compensation including fringe benefits, inclusion in institutional voting and governance, and due process protections against abrupt termination. Further, universities and schools and colleges of pharmacy should foster a culture that values all faculty regardless of rank or position. The purpose of this commentary is to describe ongoing efforts and lessons learned by one public university with a college of pharmacy that has non-tenure-track and tenure-track faculty. Our hope is to provide insight into how these experiences could be used as a basis to inform changes in policy by other universities with a school or college of pharmacy, as well as to inform possible changes to the Academy's policies.

A Descriptive Study Examining Trends in Pharmacist-Authored Original Research Publications in the Journal of the American Medical Association Network from 2000 to 2019

Pharmacists are expected to participate in the conduction of research to advance the profession and health care broadly. Additional opportunities for pharmacist research engagement have emerged with the increased integration of clinically trained pharmacists into interprofessional care teams. Research conducted over the past four decades has demonstrated an increasing trend of pharmacist-authored publications in medical journals. The purpose of this study was to build upon this work and investigate trends in pharmacist-authored original research publications within the JAMA Network over the past 20 years. A descriptive study design was used to retrospectively evaluate trends in the numbers of pharmacist-authored publications and authorship within those publications in nine JAMA Network journals. Data were aggregated into ten-year time periods (2000–2009 and 2010–2019) and compared using chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. Overall, pharmacist-authored publications significantly increased over the ten-year period (2.0% to 3.0%, p < 0.001), including in five specific journals: JAMA, JAMA Dermatology, JAMA Neurology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and JAMA Surgery. There was no change in first—and senior-authored publications. While the overall pharmacist publication trend was positive, room for significant growth remains. A deeper understanding of the barriers and facilitators to pharmacist engagement in research is needed, along with strategies to enhance pharmacist research training.

Bibliometric data based on the Pharm.D. and Ph.D. degree in United States research-intensive colleges of pharmacy

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this work was to compare bibliometrics based on doctoral degrees within United States colleges of pharmacy to understand productivity differences. Secondary objectives were to provide quantitative data based on degree that could be utilized by individual faculty, administration and other key stakeholders in academic pharmacy.

METHODS

Bibliometric indices were obtained from Scopus and Web of Science for faculty from research-intensive United States pharmacy schools. Scholarly metrics that included publication number, total citations, highest cited article and H-index were compared between degrees using multivariate regression adjusted for academic rank and years since first publication. A correction for multiple testing was applied.

KEY FINDINGS

All collected scholarly metrics were higher for Ph.D.-only and Pharm.D./Ph.D. faculty when compared to Pharm.D.-only faculty. Ph.D.-only faculty significantly differed compared to Pharm.D./Ph.D. faculty for Web of Science average citations per document.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences are apparent between the major doctoral degrees at research-intensive, federally funded colleges of pharmacy; however, these differences were primarily identified for Pharm.D.-only compared to the other doctoral degree types Future work should analyse the potential variables that explain the scholarly metrics differences between degrees and aim to analyse other areas of faculty impact beyond scholarly metrics.

A cross-sectional analysis of self-reported scholarly publications among United States pharmacy practice faculty

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this study were to provide an estimate of self-reported peer-reviewed publications and evaluate characteristics associated with publication rates among pharmacy practice faculty within United States (US)-based colleges and schools of pharmacy.

METHODS

An online survey instrument was distributed to pharmacy practice faculty via email listserv. Information regarding faculty members' publication histories, faculty position, institutional characteristics, and faculty demographic characteristics was gathered. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize participants, and t-tests and analysis of variance were used for comparisons among groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine pharmacy practice faculty were included. The majority were female (67%), white (81%), and from public institutions (66%). Academic ranks were well-represented. Reporting higher percent time spent in research, employment at public institutions, and having earned a doctor of philosophy (PhD) degree were all significantly associated with higher total number of publications and a higher annualized publication rate. Tenure track faculty who were not yet tenured had higher annual publication rates than faculty who were tenured or in non-tenure track positions. The overall annual publication rate was 2.0 ± 2.1 publications per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Characteristics such as being in a tenure track position, holding a PhD, spending more time in research, and employment within a public institution were all associated with a higher publication rate. These self-reported data from pharmacy practice faculty also indicate an increase in the average number of scholarly publications per year from previously reported estimates.

Exploring factors associated with scholarly writing among US pharmacy practice faculty

OBJECTIVES

This study explored intrinsic facilitators (i.e., grit, self-efficacy, and writing motivation) and barriers associated with scholarly output as measured by self-reported publications among US pharmacy practice faculty.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study design was used to gather information regarding scholarly writing output and intrinsic facilitators and barriers among US pharmacy practice faculty using an online self-reported survey. The survey link was distributed via email between October and November 2017. The Grit-S, New Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSE), and Scholarly Writing Motivation Scale (SWMS) were used to measure grit, self-efficacy, and writing motivation, respectively. Perceived barriers, self-reported quantity of publications, and demographics were also collected. A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used to determine effects of perceived barriers and each intrinsic factor on self-reported total publications.

RESULTS

N = 208 participants were included in the analyses. The average number of self-reported annual publications was 1.88. Participants who reported having higher than average numbers of annual publications (n = 85, 40.9%) more frequently held a PhD degree and were more frequently in the tenure track, compared to those with annual publications less than the average (n = 123, 59.1%). The majority of both groups reported being employed in public institutions. Lack of time for scholarly writing was the highest perceived barrier and lack of knowledge about technical writing/English mastery was the lowest. All three SEM models consistently showed that perceived barriers were negatively associated with numbers of self-reported publications. However, only scholarly writing motivation according to SWMS was positively associated with the numbers of self-reported publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Writing motivation and barriers to scholarly writing are shown to have a significant impact on scholarly output. These factors can be identified and should be appropriately addressed by colleges/schools of pharmacy to enhance scholarly activities among pharmacy practice faculty.

Facilitating Advancement of Clinical-Track Pharmacy Faculty Members

Clinical faculty members in most pharmacy practice departments are expected to engage in practice, teaching, research and scholarship, and service. Although new clinical faculty members are typically well equipped to engage in the clinical practice aspect of their position, they generally lack experience in the other academic pillars and, depending on the institution, may not have dedicated time to engage in each area of effort, particularly research and scholarship. Consequently, achieving balance and realizing success in the tripartite mission of academia can be challenging. A multimodal approach can be used to facilitate advancement among clinical faculty members through faculty development and mentoring, attention to workload, clear expectations, and provision of feedback on performance and progression toward goals. This approach, which has been well received, has been associated with higher rates of promotion among clinical faculty members at one institution. Schools and colleges of pharmacy that value research and scholarship and are struggling to facilitate advancement among clinical faculty members may consider adopting some or all aspects of this program.

Impact of Achieved Tenure and Promotion on Faculty Research Productivity at a School of Pharmacy

Objective:

Critics of the promotion and tenure system contend that promotion and tenure may lead to a decline in research productivity (“dead wood phenomena”) by those faculty. To assess this perception, we compiled the publications and grants at the time of application for promotion, and again through 2017 for the same faculty following promotion and/or tenure.

Methods:

Promotion documents at a school of pharmacy at a public Midwestern university were assessed. Mean publication rates and grant dollars per year per faculty member were compared to the same group of faculty (n=13) pre and post-promotion.

Results:

At the time of promotion to associate professor, mean numbers of total publications per year per faculty in the pharmacy practice department were 1.1, compared to 1.4 post-promotion. For pharmaceutical sciences department faculty, corresponding means were 5.0 and 4.1, respectively. At the time of promotion to full professor, mean numbers of total publications per year for pharmacy practice faculty were 7.0, compared to 7.2 post-promotion. For pharmaceutical sciences faculty, corresponding means were 3.5 and 4.7, respectively. For grant activity, both associate professors and full professors increased the mean total dollars per year from pre-promotion to post-promotion for both departments.

Conclusion:

Research productivity at this school of pharmacy continues to be either maintained or increased since promotion for the collective group of faculty. This evidence runs counter to the perception that promotion and tenure may lead to decreased scholarly productivity. The study provides a roadmap for other schools/colleges to quantify research productivity and make comparisons to national mean levels reported in the literature.

A bibliometric analysis of the top 50 NIH-Funded colleges of pharmacy using two databases

BACKGROUND

Scholarly productivity is an essential component of college of pharmacy activities and may depend on university rank, faculty type, faculty rank and department. Bibliometric measures provide a means to analyze scholarly productivity from colleges of pharmacy while accounting for these various factors.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze bibliometric data from two databases based on Carnegie Research Classification and NIH-funding rank; provide descriptions of bibliometric data based on department type and faculty classification; and examine the distribution of publications in the top 50 NIH-funded Colleges of Pharmacy.

METHODS

Faculty rosters were gathered for the top 50 NIH-funded colleges of pharmacy, and names were searched in Scopus and Web of Science to establish bibliometric records. Bibliometric indices were compared based on Carnegie Basic Classification and between the NIH funding ranks 1-25 versus 26-50 using WOS bibliometric data. Descriptive statistics were presented, and Pareto distributions were developed for total publications across all schools included.

RESULTS

Schools in the top 25 for NIH funding and schools with a Carnegie R1 classification had significantly higher bibliometric measures compared to schools ranked 26-50 and schools classified as R2, respectively. For faculty members with a bibliometric record (i.e., at least one publication), 20% provide approximately 60% of the publications. Additionally, approximately 90% of publications are provided by 50% of faculty records. Faculty records from basic science departments, as compared to clinical pharmacy departments, represent the highest contributing groups in the Pareto analysis.

CONCLUSION

Bibliometric indices are higher at colleges of pharmacy with greater NIH funding or an R1 Carnegie classification. A minority of faculty provides most publications in colleges of pharmacy, which is composed of members from basic science departments. The descriptive data provided here is useful for understanding readily available bibliometric data based on department type and faculty classification and rank.

Design and Evaluation of a Longitudinal Faculty Development Program to Advance Scholarly Writing Among Pharmacy Practice Faculty

Objective. To describe the design and evaluation of a six-month longitudinal faculty development program designed to promote experience and skills in scholarly writing among pharmacy practice faculty. Methods. Writer's Block uses a scheduled weekly writing time, peer support, and multiple accountability measures to promote progress in manuscript writing. Faculty participation, satisfaction, and manuscript writing progress were used to evaluate the program's success. Demographic data describing faculty participation in at least one of three cohorts of Writer's Block were collected. Satisfaction was determined using an anonymous online survey. Writing progress was determined through reporting of weekly manuscript word counts and submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Results. Twelve assistant professors participated in one or more program cohorts to develop 20 manuscripts. Twelve (60%) manuscripts were submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Of these, 10 (83%) have been published or accepted for publication, and one (8%) is undergoing peer review. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the program was helpful in starting and advancing manuscript writing. Specific program components meant to encourage writing accountability, such as monthly meetings, reporting word counts, and setting a weekly writing schedule, were highly valued. Conclusion. This program is the first described writing-focused faculty development program among pharmacy practice faculty. It successfully engaged pharmacy practice faculty members in the scholarly writing process, evidenced by participation in the program, participant satisfaction, and documented progress in manuscript development.

Publication Rates of Social and Administrative Sciences Pharmacy Faculty in Non-Research Intensive Pharmacy Schools

Objective. To assess the level of publication rates from 2011 through 2015 by Social and Administrative Sciences (SAS) faculty at non-research intensive pharmacy schools. Methods. The Web of Science database was searched using faculty names identified from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) faculty and professional staff roster. Publication rates of SAS faculty were calculated and compared using several demographic subcategories such as public/private school, part of an academic health center, schools with PhD program, funding status, etc. Results. The 208 SAS faculty members from 59 colleges contributed to 478 publications with a mean of 95.6 publications per year and 1.62 publications per institution per year. The number of publications increased 45% over the five years from 67 publications in 2011 to 122 in 2015.The average number of publications was 0.92 per year per SAS faculty compared to 0.82 publications per year per faculty from other basic pharmaceutical sciences divisions. The most commonly published research was research articles in the area of scholarship of teaching and learning. The significant predictors of publications were being part of an academic health center, having a PhD program, and higher percent of faculty members who are SAS faculty. Conclusion. Despite being affiliated with institutions with missions less targeted on research, this study showed SAS faculty members at non-research intensive institutions consistently contribute to published literature. Further studies are needed to examine reasons for the lack of publishing by almost half of the SAS faculty and ways to increase research and publication in the field of SAS.

The impact of participation in a Research/Writing Group on scholarly pursuits by non-tenure track clinical faculty

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success of a faculty Research/Writing Group (RWG) by quantifying the amount of scholarly productivity from participants in the group compared with that of a matched cohort.

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING

The RWG meets monthly to discuss current projects, providing an assessment of their scholarly activity. Participants offer ideas on improvement, resources and possible platforms for presentations and/or publications.

FINDINGS

To evaluate the success of this model, scholarly production from the participants in the RWG was compared to a matched group of clinical non-tenure track faculty not participating in the group over a three year period. Faculty perception of RWG participation was evaluated by data collected through a survey using Qualtrics.

SUMMARY

Participation in the RWG provided these junior faculty the support system to feel confident in their pursuit of scholarly activities; and therefore, they outpaced their counterparts in dissemination of their research.

Essential Training, Resources, and Skills of First-Year and Junior Pharmacy Practice Faculty Needed in the Development of an Individual Research Program

OBJECTIVE

To describe types of current training/support received and elicit opinions on the level of importance of specific skills and resources needed to build confidence in conducting research for early-career pharmacy practice faculty.

METHODS

A survey instrument regarding available resources, levels of importance of resources, and skills needed to improve research confidence was sent to all new early-career practice faculty members with 3 or less years of experience in academia at 129 US colleges and schools of pharmacy.

RESULTS

Few respondents indicated a formal research training existed at their institution. Overall, a majority of respondents identified at least 14 specific developmental areas as moderately to very important in building confidence. Over 75% of respondents rated 15 basic skills as moderately to very important in successfully starting an individual research program.

CONCLUSION

Although different types of research training programs are available, confidence in conducting research in both informal and formal ones is low. Both groups of respondents identified similar important developmental research areas that would increase their confidence and skills in achieving their early research goals.

Publication Rates for Pharmaceutical Sciences Faculty Members at Nonresearch-Intensive US Schools of Pharmacy

OBJECTIVE

To provide benchmarking data for faculty productivity by determining publication rates for pharmaceutical sciences faculty members at nonresearch-intensive schools and colleges of pharmacy between January 2010 and December 2013.

METHODS

Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched using faculty names from the AACP faculty and professional staff roster. Annual publication rates were calculated and compared for various demographic subcategories.

RESULTS

The average annual publication rate for the 4-year period was 0.82 per faculty member, and 10.95 per institution. Publication rates were significantly higher in departments offering a PhD program or with NIH funding.

CONCLUSION

Because institutional missions are diverse, it can be useful to evaluate faculty scholarly productivity in relation to similar organizations. Pharmaceutical science faculty members at nonresearch-intensive institutions contribute to the literature despite institutional missions less focused on research.

Development of a pharmacy student research program at a large academic medical center

PURPOSE

A program to promote research by pharmacy students created through the collaboration of an academic medical center and a college of pharmacy is described.

SUMMARY

In 2009, Midwestern University Chicago College of Pharmacy and Northwestern Memorial Hospital (NMH) expanded their existing partnership by establishing a program to increase opportunities for pharmacy students to conduct clinical-translational research. All professional year 1, 2, or 3 students at the college, as well as professional year 4 students on rotation at NMH, can participate in the program. Central to the program's infrastructure is the mentorship of student leads by faculty- and hospital-based pharmacists. The mentors oversee the student research projects and guide development of poster presentations; student leads mentor junior students and assist with orientation and training activities. Publication of research findings in the peer-reviewed literature is a key program goal. In the first four years after program implementation, participation in a summer research program grew nearly 10-fold (mainly among incoming professional year 2 or 3 students, and student poster presentations at national pharmacy meetings increased nearly 20-fold; the number of published research articles involving student authors increased from zero in 2009 to three in 2012 and two in 2013.

CONCLUSION

A collaborative program between an academic medical center and a college of pharmacy has enabled pharmacy students to conduct research at the medical center and has been associated with increases in the numbers of poster presentations and publications involving students.

Incorporating Pharmacy Scholarship to Management Responsibilities

Practice advancement demands innovation. Amidst professional change, pharmacy leaders have the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues to develop transformational ideas, implement these solutions, and share those successes with professionals around the state, country, and world. Scholarship, defined as contributing to the literature through publications, presentations, and other writings, is an ideal way to advance innovation within the profession. It is critical for pharmacy leaders to build scholarship into their professional workflow. Ensuring that successful projects are published or presented may translate into shared best practices. Many pharmacy leaders may find it difficult to participate in scholarship activities because of their busy schedules. This column serves to outline recommendations on how to effectively incorporate writing for publications, making presentations, and other scholarly work into the role of pharmacy leaders and managers. To reduce the barriers to scholarship, pharmacy leaders role can apply project management principles to their work and identify projects that otherwise would not be published and support their development.

A descriptive and historical review of bibliometrics with applications to medical sciences

The discipline of bibliometrics involves the application of mathematical and statistical methods to scholarly publications. The first attempts at systematic data collection were provided by Alfred Lotka and Samuel Bradford, who subsequently established the foundational laws of bibliometrics. Eugene Garfield ushered in the modern era of bibliometrics with the routine use of citation analysis and systematized processing. Key elements of bibliometric analysis include database coverage, consistency and accuracy of the data, data fields, search options, and analysis and use of metrics. A number of bibliometric applications are currently being used in medical science and health care. Bibliometric parameters and indexes may be increasingly used by grant funding sources as measures of research success. Universities may build benchmarking standards from bibliometric data to determine academic achievement through promotion and tenure guidelines in the future. This article reviews the history, definition, laws, and elements of bibliometric principles and provides examples of bibliometric applications to the broader health care community. To accomplish this, the Medline (1966-2014) and Web of Science (1945-2014) databases were searched to identify relevant articles; select articles were also cross-referenced. Articles selected were those that provided background, history, descriptive analysis, and application of bibliometric principles and metrics to medical science and health care. No attempt was made to cover all areas exhaustively; rather, key articles were chosen that illustrate bibliometric concepts and enhance the reader's knowledge. It is important that faculty and researchers understand the limitations and appropriate uses of bibliometric data. Bibliometrics has considerable potential as a research area for health care scientists and practitioners that can be used to discover new information about academic trends, pharmacotherapy, disease, and broader health sciences trends.

Balance of academic responsibilities of clinical track pharmacy faculty in the United States: a survey of select American College of Clinical Pharmacy Practice and Research Network Members

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To characterize the balance of clinical and academic responsibilities of clinical track pharmacy faculty in the United States and evaluate organizational structures that promote satisfactory balance between these responsibilities.

DESIGN

Prospective cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

A 22-item online survey was developed and distributed via Qualtrics software.

PARTICIPANTS

Clinical faculty members of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Adult Medicine, Ambulatory Care, Cardiology, Critical Care, Gastrointestinal/Liver/Nutrition, Immunology/Transplantation, Infectious Disease, and Pediatrics Practice and Research Networks (PRNs) were invited to participate via the PRN electronic mailing list.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The survey comprised questions related to demographics, organizational structure, and balance of clinical and academic responsibilities. A total of 344 participants responded to some or all of the survey questions. The demographics were relatively equally balanced between faculty at state and private academic institutions, academic rank, and practice setting. Expected and actual effort allocations were similar for each of the clinical and academic responsibilities, with direct patient care and clinical teaching representing more than 50% effort allocation cumulatively. Clinical faculty at state institutions devoted a larger proportion of time to clinical service, whereas clinical faculty at private institutions devoted a greater proportion of time to didactic teaching. When asked about time constraints, 157 (69.8%) of the 225 survey participants responding to this question did not believe they had sufficient time to fulfill their nonclinical academic needs. Clinical faculty who were provided "protected time" away from clinical service had a significantly more favorable opinion of this question.

CONCLUSION

Most of the clinical track pharmacy faculty indicated that they have insufficient time to fulfill their nonclinical academic responsibilities. Provision of protected time may alleviate some of these time constraints.

[Not Available]

BACKGROUND

Honorary and ghost authorship, as well as competing interests, are well documented concerns related to the publication of scientific articles. Guidelines for writing and publishing scientific manuscripts are available, including those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this descriptive cross-sectional study was to identify, in the instructions for authors of pharmacy practice journals, guidance on authorship and competing interests. The secondary objective was to suggest suitable corrective measures for more transparent authorship.

METHODS

The first step of the project was to identify journals in the area of pharmacy practice. The instructions for authors of each journal were then reviewed to determine recommendations for avoiding problems related to authorship and competing interests. Finally, the members of the research team formulated potential corrective measures for researchers.

RESULTS

Of 232 pharmacy journals identified, 33 were deemed to focus on pharmacy practice. A total of 24 (73%) of these journals mentioned that they followed ICMJE policies, 14 (42%) asked authors to complete a competing interests disclosure form at the time of submission, 17 (52%) had a formal definition of authorship, and 5 (15%) asked for details of each author's contribution. A list of 40 criteria was developed to define authorship status.

CONCLUSION

Fewer than half of the journals asked authors to provide a competing interests disclosure form upon submission of an article, and only half had a formal definition of authorship. The scientific publication of papers relevant to pharmacy practice is not free from issues related to publication transparency. Publishing articles online and using a checklist to detail each author's contribution may help to limit the associated risks. [Publisher's translation].

Quantifying published scholarly works of experiential education directors

OBJECTIVE

To determine the amount and potential impact of scholarly works that directors of experiential education in US colleges and schools of pharmacy have published since 2001.

METHODS

A search in Web of Science was used to identify publications and citations for the years 2001-2011 by experiential education directors as identified by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Roster of Faculty and Professional Staff in 2011. Publication productivity was analyzed by position title, faculty rank, and type of institution (public vs private, research vs nonresearch-intensive). Types of published works were characterized, related citations were identified, and a reported h-index was collected for each person who published during this period.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven of 226 (43%) experiential education directors published 344 scholarly works which had received 1841 citations, for an average of 1 publication every 3 years and an average citation rate of 5.3 per publication. Directors at publicly funded and research-intensive institutions published slightly more than did their counterparts at private and nonresearch-intensive schools. Publications were concentrated in 6 journals with a weighted mean publication impact factor of 1.5.

CONCLUSION

Many experiential education directors have published scholarly works even though their titles and ranks vary widely. While the quantity of such works may not be large, the impact is similar to that of other pharmacy practice faculty members. These results could be used to characterize the scholarly performance of experiential education directors in recent years as well as to establish a culture of scholarship in this emerging career track within pharmacy education.