Visiting Professorship in Academic Radiation Oncology

PURPOSE

Visiting professorship is an enjoyable activity that is also influential in academic promotional processes as evidence of the invitee's national reputation. Little is known, however, about the factors considered when selecting visiting professors (VPs) or whether this practice reflects objective criteria. We sought to characterize the process and diversity of participants in visiting professorships within academic radiation oncology (RO) to determine whether opportunities are equitably distributed.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Surveys were distributed to program directors (PDs) of every 2018 RO residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. PDs were asked to identify all VPs over the past 2 years and to describe their departments' decision-making processes. Publicly available demographic and academic characteristics were obtained for each VP, and results were compared by VP gender and hosting program (HP) 2019 Doximity rank using the χ2 test for categorical data and t test for continuous data.

RESULTS

The PD response rate was 60 of 93 (65%); 6 surveys were ≥50% incomplete and were excluded. Over a 2-year timeframe, 51 of 54 departments hosted 233 VPs, of whom 29% were women. The mean number of hosted VPs (5; range, 1-19) and gender distribution (35% women; range, 0-100%) did not significantly differ by HP rank (P = .17 and 0.65, respectively), nor did the selection criteria by which VPs were primarily chosen (subject matter expertise, teaching reputation, and resident interest). Women received significantly lower honoraria amounts than men (P = .035) despite no significant differences by gender in academic rank (P = .71), VP department rank (0.19), or M-index (0.83).

CONCLUSION

Although sample size is limited, this study suggests that academic RO programs have a relatively equitable approach to selecting VPs that emphasizes trainee education and reflects the gender diversity of RO faculty more generally. Care should be taken to ensure that these similarly qualified women are offered the same monetary amount of honoraria as their male colleagues.

Tenure Appointments for Faculty of Clinical Departments at U.S. Medical Schools: Does Specialty Designation Make a Difference?

PURPOSE

To describe differences and trends among clinical specialty departments in number and percentage of tenure-related appointments for full-time faculty.

METHOD

Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster annual snapshot reports were used to calculate percentages of full-time faculty holding tenure-related appointments in each of the database's 17 groupings of clinical specialty departments. Faculty numbers and percentages by track were compared to investigate trends for 2006 to 2016.

RESULTS

In the decade 2006-2016, the number of individuals on tenure-related tracks in clinical departments declined by 0.8% (276/33,610), but those on nontenure appointments increased by 60.5% (36,444/60,195). The number reporting "tenure not available" rose by 58.9% (4,467/7,574). Currently, 62% to 82% of full-time faculty in clinical departments are on nontenure tracks. Specialties differ significantly in current percentage and in rate of change in both numbers and percentage of tenure-related appointments. In 2016, faculty on tenure-related tracks ranged from 34.5% (295/855) in public health and preventive medicine to 13.5% (654/5,654) in family medicine. The most significant drops in percentage of tenure-related appointments in 2006-2016 were in surgery, pediatrics, and internal medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Dramatic changes in size and track distribution of faculty are occurring at significantly different rates across clinical specialty departments. The number of individuals on tenure-related tracks remains relatively stable, but the percentage of such faculty in clinical specialty departments continues to drop dramatically in almost all specialties. The growing dominance of nontenure appointments has important implications for career development and academic promotion policies and practices in all specialties.

Does the H Index Correlate With Academic Rank Among Full-Time Academic Craniofacial Surgeons?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relationship between the H index and the academic rank among full-time academic craniofacial surgeons.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study of full-time academic craniofacial surgeons.

SETTING

Data were compiled and analyzed at the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital.

RESULTS

The study sample included 127 full-time academic craniofacial surgeons. Overall, 89% were men, the mean number of years since completion of training was 16.2 ± 11.2 years. Most surgeons had a background in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Approximately 75% had completed formal fellowship training. The mean H index for the sample was 12.4 ± 9.9. The H index was strongly correlated with academic rank (r_s = 0.62, p < 0.001). In a multiple linear regression model, adjusting for multiple confounders/effect modifiers, including number of years since training and total number of publications, the H index was significantly associated with academic rank (coefficient = 0.33, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Among full-time academic craniofacial surgeons, the H index is strongly correlated with the academic rank.

Working Definitions of the Roles and an Organizational Structure in Health Professions Education Scholarship: Initiating an International Conversation

PROBLEM

Health professions education scholarship (HPES) is an important and growing field of inquiry. Problematically, consistent use of terminology regarding the individual roles and organizational structures that are active in this field are lacking. This inconsistency impedes the transferability of current and future findings related to the roles and organizational structures of HPES.

APPROACH

Based on data collected during interviews with HPES leaders in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the Netherlands, the authors constructed working definitions for some of the professional roles and an organizational structure that support HPES. All authors reviewed the definitions to ensure relevance across multiple countries.

OUTCOMES

The authors define and offer illustrative examples of three professional roles in HPES (clinician educator, HPES research scientist, and HPES administrative leader) and an organizational structure that can support HPES participation (HPES unit). These working definitions are foundational and not all-encompassing and, thus, are offered as stimulus for international dialogue and understanding.

NEXT STEPS

With these working definitions, scholars and administrative leaders can examine HPES roles and organizational structures across and between national contexts to decide how lessons learned in other contexts can be applied to their local contexts. Although rigorously constructed, these definitions need to be vetted by the international HPES community. The authors argue that these definitions are sufficiently transferable to support such scholarly investigation and debate.