The 100 Leading Contributors to English-Language Gerontological Journals: An International Study of Scholarly Impact

The two aims of this study were to: 1) identify the 100 most impactful contributors to English-language gerontological journals, and 2) map their respective disciplinary affiliations to help illuminate the perspectives shaping gerontological discourse. Toward that end, we conducted a secondary data analysis of a publicly available database of the world's leading scientists. After extracting all scientists in the gerontological category, we rank ordered them according to a composite measure of scholarly impact that controls for self-citations and author order while also calculating other bibliometric statistics. Disciplinary affiliations were assigned based upon the Classification of Instructional Programs codes developed by the National Center for Education Statistics at the United States Department of Education. The results reveal the mean contributor to the gerontological literature published 241.15 (SD = 203.95) papers and - after correcting for self-citations - had an h-index of 50.05 (SD = 25.00), and an hm-index 23.67 (SD = 7.50). A diverse array of professional affiliations characterized the contributors with a plurality being located in the health professions category, followed by the biological and biomedical science, and social sciences categories. The results reveal that gerontology is home to some of the world's leading scientists. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's collective knowledge development.

The Pittman Scholar Program for junior faculty recognition at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine

The University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine established the Pittman Scholars Program in 2015 to elevate scientific impact and to support the recruitment and retention of highly competitive junior faculty. The authors examined the impact of this program on research productivity and on faculty retention. The authors evaluated publications and extramural grant awards and available demographic data for the Pittman Scholars compared to all junior faculty in the Heersink School of Medicine. From 2015 to 2021, the program awarded a diverse group of 41 junior faculty members across the institution. For this cohort, ninety-four new extramural grants were awarded and 146 grant applications were submitted since the inception of the scholar award. Pittman Scholars published a total of 411 papers during the term of the award. The faculty retention rate of the scholars was 95%, comparable to that of all Heersink junior faculty, with 2 recipients being recruited to other institutions. The implementation of the Pittman Scholars Program has been an effective strategy to celebrate scientific impact and acknowledge junior faculty members as outstanding scientists at our institution. The Pittman Scholars award allows junior faculty to use funds for their research program, publications, collaborations, and career advancement. The Pittman Scholars are recognized at local, regional, and national levels for the work they are contributing to academic medicine. The program has served as an important pipeline faculty development program and an avenue for individual recognition for research-intensive faculty.

Relationship among faculty fatigue, academic rank, and scholarship and service productivity

AIM

To examine the relationship among the level of fatigue, academic rank, workload (credit hours) and faculty productivity (as measured by scholarship and service activities).

DESIGN

Descriptive cross-sectional correlational design.

PARTICIPANTS

All full-time faculty in national year-round nursing college.

METHODS

An Internet survey was distributed May/June 2017 to all full-time faculty (n = 318). Responses reported are from 81 faculty members in the prelicensure baccalaureate programme. Survey items included workload, scholarship and service activities and demographic data. Fatigue was measured by the trait version of Occupational Fatigue, Exhaustion Recovery scale which has three subscales: Acute, Persistent, and Chronic.

RESULTS

Mean fatigue for all traits ranged from 45.9 to 52.48. More service activities were reported than scholarship activities. There was a significant positive correlation between chronic fatigue and credit hours. No significant differences existed in fatigue scores based on frequency of scholarship and service activities.

CONCLUSION

This first study of fatigue in nursing faculty establishes the existence of fatigue in this group. This can be serious related to the existence of chronic fatigue. Strategies to reduce fatigue are important to support the long-term employment of nursing faculty.

IMPACT

What problem did the study address? Fatigue in faculty members and its relationship to academic rank and scholarship and service productivity. What were the main findings? Fatigue in faculty members exists. Higher rank was associated with more scholarship and service activities. Chronic fatigue is less than acute or persistent fatigue. Chronic fatigue is related to workload. Where and on whom will the research have impact? Findings may impact retention of nursing faculty members and academic leaders responsible for supporting work-life balance among nursing faculty.

Key Strategies for Building Research Capacity of University Faculty Members

Universities are under pressure to increase external research funding, and some federal agencies offer programs to expand research capacity in certain kinds of institutions. However, conflicts within faculty roles and other aspects of university operations influence the effectiveness of particular strategies for increasing research activity. We review conventional approaches to increasing research, focusing on outcomes for individual faculty members and use one federally-funded effort to build cancer-related research capacity at a public university as an example to explore the impact of various strategies on research outcomes. We close with hypotheses that should be tested in future formal studies.

Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey

BACKGROUND

Faculty productivity is essential for academic medical centers striving to achieve excellence and national recognition. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether and how academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation.

METHODS

We surveyed the Chairs of academic Departments of Medicine in the United States in 2012. We sent a paper-based questionnaire along with a personalized invitation letter by postal mail. For non-responders, we sent reminder letters, then called them and faxed them the questionnaire. The questionnaire included 8 questions with 23 tabulated close-ended items about the types of productivity measured (clinical, research, teaching, administrative) and the measurement strategies used. We conducted descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Chairs of 78 of 152 eligible departments responded to the survey (51% response rate). Overall, 82% of respondents reported measuring at least one type of faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation. Amongst those measuring faculty productivity, types measured were: clinical (98%), research (61%), teaching (62%), and administrative (64%). Percentages of respondents who reported the use of standardized measurements units (e.g., Relative Value Units (RVUs)) varied from 17% for administrative productivity to 95% for research productivity. Departments reported a wide variation of what exact activities are measured and how they are monetarily compensated. Most compensation plans take into account academic rank (77%). The majority of compensation plans are in the form of a bonus on top of a fixed salary (66%) and/or an adjustment of salary based on previous period productivity (55%).

CONCLUSION

Our survey suggests that most academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity and convert it into standardized units for the purpose of salary compensation. The exact activities that are measured and how they are monetarily compensated varied substantially across departments.

Faculty attitudes and scholarly productivity resulting from a seminar course

OBJECTIVES

To determine faculty attitudes toward a professional seminar course for PharmD students, document scholarly production derived from the course, and ascertain whether that scholarly production or other faculty characteristics affected attitudes toward the course.

METHODS

Faculty members served as facilitators for pharmacy students enrolled in a professional seminar course. A 34-item survey instrument intended to identify faculty attitudes toward the course and document scholarly productivity was developed. All 40 faculty facilitators involved in the course were asked to complete the survey instrument.

RESULTS

Of the 30 (75%) faculty members who completed the survey instrument, 20 had an overall positive attitude toward the course. Faculty members had generated approximately 90 peer-reviewed scholarly works over a 9-year period as a result of the course. Significant associations were found between faculty members' attitudes toward the course and academic rank, academic department, and scholarly production derived from the course.

CONCLUSIONS

Faculty members who had advanced academic rank, an appointment in the pharmacy practice department, and scholarly productivity as a result of serving as a facilitator for a Professional Seminar Course were more likely to have positive attitudes toward the course.

Scholarly Activities of Family Medicine Faculty: Results of a National Survey

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This survey examined how family medicine residency programs define scholarly activity, the productivity of programs, and perceived barriers to scholarly work. Five types of residency programs are compared: university-based, community-based (unaffiliated, university-affiliated, university-administered), and military.

METHODS

A 13 item web-based questionnaire was sent to all 455 U. S. family medicine residency programs. The survey solicited demographic information as well as program expectations of faculty, presence of a research coordinator/director, activities considered scholarly, productivity, and perceived barriers.

RESULTS

A total of 177 surveys were completed for a response rate of 38%, similar to response rates of web-based surveys in the literature. 67.6% of programs encouraged, but did not require scholarly activity, and 44.5% indicated their program had no research coordinator/ director. University-based programs had the highest levels of productivity compared to other program types. Primary barriers to scholarly activity noted were lack of time (73/138, 53%) and lack of supportive infrastructure (37/138, 27%).

CONCLUSIONS

While interpretations are limited by the response rate of the survey, results provide an increased understanding of how programs define scholarly activity as well as reference points for faculty productivity. This information can help program directors when setting criteria for scholarly work.

Using relative value units to measure faculty clinical productivity

The objective of this project was to compare faculty productivity in teaching and nonteaching clinical settings. We hypothesized that teaching activity would have no impact on productivity. A mixed model, repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze average relative value units (RVUs) billed and to test for differences between clinics. Data were drawn from 4,956 clinical encounters made within a student, resident, and faculty clinic. Average RVUs per visit were similar in the three settings. Resident supervision increased faculty productivity, while student supervision had no impact on billed RVUs. Thus, RVUs can be used as a measure of faculty clinical productivity in different settings in an academic medical center. Precepting students does not appear to affect clinical productivity.