Faculty Research Productivity Research Articles

Examining Underrepresented Minority STEM Faculty Members’ Motivation for Research

Underrepresented minority (URM) university faculty can be identified as those whose representation based on gender, race, and/or ethnicity in particular fields, such as Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM), are smaller than in the US population. Studies on URM faculty have found discrimination and affiliated stress impact faculty in many aspects of their work, such as performance in research. In the current study, we examined STEM faculty who self-identify as URM, their experiences of workplace discrimination, and how these encounters affect their self-determined motivation to conduct research. Six-hundred and fifty-one faculty from 10 US institutions completed an online survey. Of the participants, 37.5% self-identified as URM, of which 81% were women, 20% non-white, and 6% Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity; notably, the data shows that 24% of women and 56% of non-white faculty did not self-identify as URM. More than 87% of URM reported workplace bias, which correlated with significantly lower autonomy and relatedness with coworkers. URM women reported gender discrimination at work was common and upsetting, which related to greater amotivation. Non-white and Hispanic/Latinx/Spanish URM who reported high success in research also cited more discrimination. URM faculty motivation was fostered by autonomy and competence, and much more by relatedness compared to non-URM faculty. For non-URM, autonomous motivation (enjoyment, value) positively related to research success, whereas for URM faculty a lack of introjected motivation (guilt) was the strongest predictor. Discussion focuses on implications for future studies of faculty motivation and strategies to promote URM faculty research productivity.

Research Publication Rates Are Age- and Era-Dependent for Radiation Oncologists From Highly Ranked NCI-Designated Cancer Centers

Quantitative bibliometrics are increasingly used to evaluate faculty research productivity. This study benchmarks publication rates for radiation oncologists from highly ranked National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers and reveals how productivity changes over the arc of a career and of the field over time. Peer-reviewed articles from 1970 to 2022 were obtained using Scopus for the 348 radiation oncologists listed as faculty for the top 10 cancer hospitals ranked by US News and World Report in 2022. Bibliometrics were analyzed for authorships (A˙), authorships where the individual was first or last author (F˙L), the monograph equivalent of authorships (M˙E), h-index, and ha-index (an analog to h-index using M˙E in place of publications). Career start was defined as the year of first publication. Bibliometric inflation was explored by analyzing authorship and bibliometric changes between 1990 and 2022. Publication rates peak, with as much as a 500% increase, 20 to 25 years from the start of a career before declining until retirement. At career ages of 1, 10, 20, and 30 years, the median bibliometrics were A˙=(1.5, 4.1, 6.5, 7.0) year-1, F˙L=(0.5, 0.9, 1.2, 0.6) year-1, M˙E= (0.2, 0.5, 0.7, 0.8) year-1, h-index=(1, 12, 22, 47), and ha-index=(0.4, 4.4, 6.9, 18.4). With regards to authorship patterns across eras, the median number of authors listed per paper increased by 240% between 1990 and 2022. Meanwhile, research productivity per individual as measured by F˙L and M˙E was unchanged. The research publication rates of the median radiation oncologist change substantially over the course of their career. Productivity improves steadily for more than 2 decades before peaking and declining. The culture of authorship has also changed between 1990 and 2022. The number of authors listed per paper has trended upwards, which has an inflationary effect on the number of authorships and h-index. Meanwhile, the rate of manuscripts published per faculty has not changed.

Comparing Apples With Apples: Women Faculty Research Productivity in Vietnamese Higher Education

For decades, abundant studies have illustrated the vast scholarly publication disparity between male and women academics. Exhaustingly, in 21st-century higher education, women’s academic research participation is below the world average, except in a few countries that comprehensively studied their faculties and personal and institutional agencies to restore parity. Higher education is widely discussed in Vietnam as incompetent academics with a shred of scholarly publications and venerable gender disparities. Hence, the current study sought to contribute robust policy and practical implications for stakeholders by inspecting women’s faculties solely to shed light on the root hindrances of their scholarly share. Remarkably, the findings of the study demonstrate that women faculty members have promising scholarly contributions in disciplines where women scientists are marginalized, that having children becomes a notable motivator for mothers in academia, and that there is genuine support from a husband who understands the worth of his wife’s research contribution to the institution and family.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Physician-Scientist Trainees and Faculty in the United States: A National Survey.

Physician-scientists have long been considered an endangered species, and their extended training pathway is vulnerable to disruptions. This study investigated the effects of COVID-19-related challenges on the personal lives, career activities, stress levels, and research productivity of physician-scientist trainees and faculty. The authors surveyed medical students (MS), graduate students (GS), residents/fellows (R/F), and faculty (F) using a tool distributed to 120 U.S. institutions with MD-PhD programs in April-June 2020. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare differences between groups. Machine learning was employed to select variables for multivariate logistic regression analyses aimed at identifying factors associated with stress and impaired productivity. The analyses included 1,929 respondents (MS: n = 679, 35%; GS: n = 676, 35%; R/F: n = 274, 14%; F: n = 300, 16%). All cohorts reported high levels of social isolation, stress from effects of the pandemic, and negative impacts on productivity. R/F and F respondents were more likely than MS and GS respondents to report financial difficulties due to COVID-19. R/F and F respondents with a dual degree expressed more impaired productivity compared with those without a dual degree. Multivariate regression analyses identified impacted research/scholarly activities, financial difficulties, and social isolation as predictors of stress and impaired productivity for both MS and GS cohorts. For both R/F and F cohorts, impacted personal life and research productivity were associated with stress, while dual-degree status, impacted research/scholarly activities, and impacted personal life were predictors of impaired productivity. More female than male respondents reported increased demands at home. This national survey of physician-scientist trainees and faculty found a high incidence of stress and impaired productivity related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the challenges faced and their consequences may improve efforts to support the physician-scientist workforce in the postpandemic period.

Socio-Demographic Determinants of Faculty Research Productivity in a Level-III Philippine State College

This paper explores the extent of research productivity and its socio-demographic determinants among faculty members in a level-III state college in the Philippines. The results aim to influence the decision-making on identifying appropriate interventions to further enhance research productivity and encourage faculty members to engage in research undertakings. The results suggest that socio-demographic characteristics of faculty members such as age, administrative designation, and supervision of graduate research determine their likelihood of publishing a research paper.

A Comparison of Demographic and Research Characteristics of Faculty in a Philippine Private University: Assessing Self-Efficacy, Attitude, and Interest

As the country shifts toward institutionalizing research-related activities for both basic and higher education, research productivity (RP) still exhibited low ratings, with most of the universities still developing their own research cultures. To keep up with this shift, the current paper aimed to provide an assessment of the current research characteristics (i.e., research self-efficacy, research attitudes, and research interests) of faculty members in a private university in Bacoor, Cavite. Focusing on a relatively small scale of faculty members (n= 49), the investigation tried to compare the faculty’s demographic profile and research characteristics to further understand the overall university faculty research productivity. The findings revealed that they have an above-average confidence level with their research skills, have a somewhat positive view of research, and are likely to be interested in doing research. The study found no significant differences among the participants' research characteristics when grouped according to their gender and educational attainment using Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests. However, there is a significant difference in the research attitudes among different age groups. Results have provided an objective assessment of the current research characteristics of university faculty members that may inform potential research training programs.

Research and academic output evaluation for career initiation or progression: Critical issues for Health Professionals

In current times, much stress is being laid on the evaluation of research productivity of researchers or faculty in addition to the academic qualifications and experience for the purposes of recruitment, promotion, and research grant funding. Over the years, several quantitative indices have been devised for this purpose. Some of these indices such as h-index, impact factor and e-index are being extensively used by research organizations, universities, accreditation bodies and funding agencies for basic scientists as well as health professionals. In the absence of any formal training, these parameters or their advantages and shortcomings may not be well understood by the health professionals, especially in the early stages of their careers and sometimes, even by the evaluators. A big unanswered question is the validity of the same criteria for health professionals as are applicable for the basic science researchers. Since health professional undertaking research assignments are neither adequately trained in basic research nor can they comprehend these indices well, the same yardstick to evaluate these two widely different groups of researchers often places the health professionals at a disadvantage. This paper aims to highlight certain vital issues related to the application of research productivity indicators for recruitment and career progression of health care professionals.

Leadership Roles, Academic Appointments, and Scholarly Activity-Does a Fellowship after Plastic Surgery Training Make a Difference?

Background Fellowship training is becoming more popular in plastic surgery, with over half of residents pursuing advanced training. Here, we investigate how clinical and research fellowship training impacts career trajectory and scholastic achievement in academic plastic surgery. Methods Plastic surgery faculty members, from programs recognized by the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons, were identified using institutional Web sites. Data extracted included faculty demographics, training history, academic positions, and research productivity. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using t -tests and chi-square, respectively. Results In total, 949 faculty members were included, with 657 (69%) having completed fellowship training. Integrated program residents were more likely to complete a fellowship when compared with independent residents ( p < 0.0001). Fellowship trained faculty were more likely to have graduated from a higher ranked residency program, in terms of both overall and research reputation ( p = 0.005 and p = 0.016, respectively). When controlling for years in practice, there was no difference found in number of publications, Hirsch index (h-index), or National Institutes of Health funding between faculty between the two cohorts ( p > 0.05). In a subanalysis comparing hand, craniofacial, microsurgery, and research fellowships, those who completed a research fellowship had higher h-indices and were more likely to reach full professor status ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). Fellowship training had no effect on being promoted to Chief/Chair of departments ( p = 0.16). Conclusion Fellowship training is common among academic plastic surgeons. In this study, both clinical and research fellowships were associated with various aspects of academic success. However, fellowship training alone did not affect attainment of leadership positions.

Open Access Electronic Resources Use and Research Productivity of Faculty Members: A Case Study of a Selected University in Ghana

Research is one of the key pillars in the teaching and learning situation in any university in the world. However, the approach to research varies from one university to the other. The purpose of this study was to find out how the level of awareness and satisfaction, the challenges and extent of use of open access resources impact research productivity of faculty in *Dartum University. A quantitative survey research method was adopted. A sample size of 62 full-time lecturers and 134 part-time lecturers was selected for the study using a stratified simple random sampling technique. The findings revealed that research productivity is low despite the high level of awareness and satisfaction with open access use. Again, the findings showed that faculty members use open access to a considerable extent and point out some challenges associated with open access use. It was concluded that there is a very weak but significant influence of open access use on research productivity in Dartum University. It is recommended that African universities, and in particular Dartum University, establish or patronise institutional repositories which support open access.

Managing individual research productivity in academic organizations: A review of the evidence and a path forward

The management of research productivity is central to university governance and drives a broad range of decisions, including those on hiring, promotion and funding allocation. Policymakers and academic leaders responsible for improving their institutions’ research performance need an evidence-based understanding of the organizational factors that can be managed in pursuit of better publication outcomes. Our paper reviews the empirical evidence on the drivers of research productivity that can be actively managed by organizations and policymakers. Such drivers include organizational structures, research culture, features of task environment for academic work, and resource allocation. To advance the state of science in research productivity literature, we then analyze assumptions and highlight mechanisms that need to be explored in order to improve theoretical and methodological state of the field. We suggest directions for future research with the aim to create a deeper and more cohesive body of knowledge on how organizations, funding bodies, and government agencies can influence scientific performance at the individual level. To advance the practice of research management, we offer a rigorous synthesis of existing empirical evidence that can help academic leaders in supporting and developing faculty research productivity within their institutions.

Building a biomedical pipeline: the impact of the Idaho IDeA INBRE summer research experience at a primarily undergraduate institution.

Idaho Institutional Development Award (IDeA) Network for Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) aims to build biomedical research capacity and enhance the scientific and technology knowledge of the Idaho workforce. A key INBRE Program at The College of Idaho, a primarily undergraduate institution of 1,100 students, is a 10-wk summer fellows research experience. This report documents outcomes from 2005 to present, including demographic trends, faculty and student research productivity, self-reported gains, educational attainment, and career outcomes. Of 103 participants, 83.7% were from Idaho, 26.7% from rural areas, and 23.9% first-generation college students. Faculty and student research productivity (conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications) increased threefold. We found that 91.4% of fellows entered a scientific- or healthcare-related career and that 70.7% completed or are currently enrolled in postgraduate training (51.7% doctoral and 19.0% master's level). Anonymous surveys were uniformly positive, with gains in self-confidence and independent laboratory work. Open-ended responses indicated students valued mentoring efforts and improved awareness of scientific opportunities and competitive preparation for postgraduate training. Lastly, we observed that student research involvement increased college-wide during the award period. These data suggest that the summer fellows program is successfully meeting National Institutes of Health IDeA goals and serving as a pipeline to future health research careers and a scientifically trained Idaho workforce.

Perceptions of Academic Departmental Climate by Men and Women and the Effects of Such Perceptions on Research Productivity

ABSTRACTWe demonstrate how men and women political scientists in PhD-granting departments perceive the professional climates there. We find remarkable differences in how men and women perceive the “cultural” climates of their departments, such as the degree to which it is sexist, but not in how they perceive strictly collegial aspects of climate. We also demonstrate that these patterns characterize the perceptions of men and women at both junior and senior ranks. Contrary to some past research, we also find that climate perceptions do not have a general effect on faculty research productivity. Further, perceptions of high departmental sexism by women scholars does not degrade their research productivity.

Subspecialty Selection Impacts Research Productivity and Faculty Rank of Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Faculty promotion and research productivity are important for the overall career trajectory of academic orthopaedic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role that subspecialty and demographic factors play in research productivity and academic advancement among orthopaedic surgeons. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of academic rank among orthopaedic surgeons in 2018. We identified academic orthopaedic programs in the United States from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) and collected publicly available data for surgeons, including fellowship training, gender, faculty rank, geographic region, and years since residency, from institutional websites. Research productivity was defined with the Hirsch index (h-index) from Scopus, and the m-index was calculated from the surgeon's h-index and the date of the first publication. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine the variables that are associated with associate professorship, full professorship, and the h-index. In this study, we identified and included 2,879 academic orthopaedic surgeons. Completion of a fellowship in foot and ankle (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.45 [1.17 to 5.15]), sports medicine (2.15 [1.12 to 4.15]), trauma (2.83 [1.42 to 5.66]), hand and upper extremity (2.20 [1.13 to 4.28]), musculoskeletal oncology (3.28 [1.49 to 7.21]), or upper-extremity reconstruction (3.20 [1.31 to 7.81]) was associated with associate professorship. Completion of a trauma fellowship was associated with full professorship (2.93 [1.27 to 6.77]). Completion of a fellowship in adult reconstruction (difference in least-squares means [95% confidence interval]: 5.01 [1.22 to 8.81]), sports medicine (4.52 [1.00 to 8.04]), spine (5.40 [1.63 to 9.18]), or upper-extremity reconstruction (10.64 [6.15 to 15.12]) or the completion of multiple fellowships (5.12 [1.27 to 8.94]) were independently associated with a higher h-index. Women had significantly lower h-indices than men at the assistant (median [interquartile range]: 3 [1 to 6] versus 4 [2 to 8]) and full professor (17 [12 to 26] versus 22 [13 to 34]) levels. There were no differences in the m-index between men and women at any academic rank. Orthopaedic subspecialty selection is independently associated with research productivity and academic rank. The differences in research productivity may be important to consider when evaluating orthopaedic surgeons for promotion. While female surgeons had lower h-indices than their male counterparts, this difference was not seen when using the m-index.

Energizing scholarly activity in a regional medical campus.

Implication StatementMedical education is increasingly delivered at distributed sites away from Academic Health Sciences Centres. The Council of Ontario Faculties of Medicine recommends schools develop resources and metrics to foster regional campus scholarly activity. Opportunities for distributed program trainees must support learning core skills in research and critical appraisal to comply with medical school accreditation standards and to develop their interests and skills in scholarly work for their future medical careers. We describe a scholarly activity program that is a template for distributed campuses or regional teaching sites seeking to increase learner and faculty engagement and research productivity.

Research productivity of radiation therapy physics faculty in the United States

PurposeResearch productivity metrics are important for decisions regarding hiring, retention, and promotion in academic medicine, and these metrics can vary widely among different disciplines. This article examines productivity metrics for radiation therapy physicists (RTP) in the United States.Methods and materialsDatabase searches were performed for RTP faculty at US institutions that have RTP residencies accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP). Demographics, academic rank, number of publications, academic career length, Hirsch index (h‐index), m‐quotient, and history of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding as a principal investigator (PI) were collected for each RTP. Logistic regression was performed to determine the probability of academic rank as a function of h‐index and m‐quotient. Statistical tests used included the Wilcoxon ranked sum test and the Pearson χ 2 test.ResultsA total of 1038 faculty and staff were identified at 78 institutions with CAMPEP‐accredited residencies. The average RTP academic career duration is 13.5 years, with 46.7 total publications, h‐index of 10.7, and m‐quotient of 0.66. Additionally, 10.5% of RTP have a history of NIH funding as a PI. Large disparities were found in academic productivity of doctoral‐prepared physicists compared to those with a terminal master's degree. For differences in junior and senior faculty, statistical tests yielded significance in career duration, number of publications, h‐index, and m‐quotient. Gender disparities were identified in the overall distribution of RTP consistent with the membership of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Further gender disparities were found in the number of doctoral‐prepared RTP and physicists in senior faculty roles.ConclusionsThis manuscript provides objective benchmark data regarding research productivity of academic RTP. These data may be of interest to faculty preparing for promotion, and also to institutional leadership.

Research productivity of management faculty: job demands-resources approach

PurposeThe main purpose of this study was to examine which job resources are most valuable for research productivity, depending on varying teaching demands.Design/methodology/approachData was collected from 324 management faculty at research, balanced and teaching (i.e. respectively low-, moderate- and high-teaching demands) public universities in the United States.FindingsResults showed that no single job resource predicted research productivity across all three types of schools. At research schools (i.e. low-teaching demands), productivity was positively associated with job resources including summer compensation, level of protection for untenured faculty and number of research assistant hours, while negatively associated with travel funding. At balanced schools (i.e. moderate-teaching demands), research output was positively associated with time allocated to research, grant money, travel funding and conference attendance, while negatively associated with amount of consulting hours. At teaching schools (i.e. high-teaching demands), the only significant resource was time allocated to research.Practical implicationsThis paper can help management faculty and business school leaders understand what resources are most appropriate given the teaching demands associated with the specific institution, and by further helping these institutions attract and retain the best possible faculty.Originality/valueThis study extends prior work on academic research performance by identifying resources that can help faculty publish given different levels of teaching demands. This is important as teaching demands tend to be relatively stable within an institution, while they can vary greatly across types of institutions.

Balancing Research Productivity and Teaching by Faculty in Higher Education: A Case Study in the Philippines

Environmental and personal characteristics are known for its contribution to research productivity of faculty in HE. Based on the theories of cognitive motivation and social motivation, this qualitative case study examined the individual and institutional conditions that impacted faculty research productivity, and discovered how faculty balance research productivity and teaching. The mechanisms used by the faculty of a private institution of HE in the Philippines in coping with research production were explored. The findings pointed to institutional support through time off for research, financial and resource back-up, and incentives. Personal aspects of this process included advancement of knowledge and research skills, recognition, and networking opportunities.

Distinct factors predict use of active learning techniques by pre-tenure and tenured STEM faculty

Despite decades of research indicating that active learning techniques (ALTs) are more effective than traditional lecture, ALTs are not widely implemented in STEM undergraduate classrooms. While ALT implementation is happening in a number of disciplines, including the geosciences, most STEM teaching remains lecture-based. Understanding the contexts that correlate with ALT adoption may allow expanded implementation. ALT use was documented among STEM pre-tenure and tenured faculty respondents across 66 research-intensive, U.S. universities, using the Change in Implementation of Pedagogical Practices survey. Personal, professional, and institutional/departmental factors were analyzed for association with ALT use. Most respondents reported using some ALTs in their teaching, with no significant distinctions between pre-tenure and tenured faculty. Teaching was perceived to carry less weight in practice (e.g., in tenure and promotion decisions) than the theoretical value stated by institutions (e.g., in faculty assignments and hiring). ALT use among tenured faculty was predicted by number of recent publications, their knowledge of education initiatives, and receiving informal feedback on their teaching. ALT use among pre-tenure faculty was predicted by the number of STEM education talks given. Perception of obstacles was a negative predictor of ALT use among tenured faculty only, though both pre-tenure and tenured faculty identified barriers to ALT use. Considering these identified barriers and how to remove them could potentially increase ALT use. The findings that ALT use by tenured faculty was predicted by number of recent publications and that grant funding was neither a positive nor negative predictor of ALT use suggest that ALT use does not hinder faculty research productivity.

“I Have No Time for Anything:” Differences in Faculty Research Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Research investigating the impact of the pandemic on university faculty has highlighted the extreme time and energy demands that have negatively affected scholarly productivity (Krukowski et al., 2020). The present study examines barriers to scholarly productivity that faculty at three small liberal arts colleges in New York State encountered during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results suggest that women and parents of children 18 and under living at home encountered more barriers to scholarly productivity than men and participants without children in this age range, signaling potentially devastating long-term career outcomes, especially for pre-tenure mothers of young children. Considering this rapidly worsening equity issue, recommendations are made for considering an achievement relative to opportunity policy for tenure and promotion reviews.

Quantitative Evaluation of Faculty Research Productivity

A fair and objective evaluation of faculty research productivity is essential for faculty development and department success. At the University of Texas at San Antonio, we recently implemented a new system to quantify faculty performance for annual evaluations (Han, Wan, and Wang 2020). It provides a framework for quantitative performance evaluation using objective expectations and flexible weight among key measures. Annual research expenditures, proposals and new research grants, scholarly work (journal papers, books, book chapters, patents, conference presentations, seminar talks), graduate student support, and paper peer citations were used as key measures for research performance. Among these quantitative measures, the peer-reviewed journal publication is the core of scholarly work. It is widely accepted that both quality and quantity should be considered in evaluating journal publications, so it is imperative to incorporate journal paper quality into quantitative evaluations. This article proposes a quantitative method to weigh paper quality when quantifying journal publications. Although it can be a challenge to evaluate the quality and impact of a good journal paper, there are multiple ways to quantify the quality of such work, including using peer evaluation scoring, peer citation number, and journal impact factor. Authorship is also a way to assess faculty contribution and productivity. Peer citation is often used as an indicator of the long-term impact of a paper, but the number varies with different fields, and it cannot be used to evaluate the quality of newly published papers in the evaluation year. The quality/ranking of the journal in which a paper is published is frequently used as the surrogate for the quality of the paper. Some suggest using the impact factor (IF) in weighing the influence of a paper (Wiegers et al. 2015). The IF of a journal is based on the history of the peer citations of the papers published by the journal, and it varies with different fields. Journal quantile ranking (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) is the relative ranking of journals in their specific fields and thus advantageous over journal impact factor when diverse scientific fields are involved (such as in a mechanical engineering department), so we weigh the quality of the papers based on the journal ranking quantile (see table 1). Authorship is also factored into the evaluation. More weight is given to the first author and senior/corresponding authors than to coauthors. Previously, a report from the University of Athens Medical School described that they gave “100%, 50%, and 33% of the impact points and citation of an original or review article to the first or last author, second author, and third author, respectively; any other authorship position corresponds to 25% of the impact points and citations” (Mentzelopoulos and Zakynthinos 2017, 1222). A report from France describes that they assign “an index of 1 to the first or last author, an index of 0.5 for the second and the next to last author, and 0.25 for all other author positions” (Sahel 2011). An alternative is using fractional contributions. Harmonic models were proposed to give the i-th author a credit of 1/i (normalized based on the number of total authors) (Hagen 2010). Another fractional distribution model was proposed as 40 percent for the first and last authors and 20 percent to be divided among the other authors (or 30 percent for the first and last authors, 15 percent for the second and second to the last authors, and the remaining 10 percent divided among the other authors) (Abramo, Cicero, and D'Angelo 2013). Our faculty voted to give the first author and the senior author a weight of 1 and other coauthors a weight of 0.6 (see table 2). To encourage collaboration, we also accept co-first authorship and co-corresponding authorship. Although the approach is generally applicable, the specific weights are adjustable, as chairs and their faculty may select the weights that best fit their department. These quantitative factors can be incorporated into quantitative evaluation metrics to better evaluate the research productivity of faculty members (Han et al. 2020). There is a limitation to these weight distributions. Journal papers in the fields of mathematics, economics, and finance often list authors by alphabetical order as a common practice. Therefore, for papers in these areas, the credit should be evenly distributed among all authors (or use alternative approaches). There is also a limitation in the use of journal quantile. Some journal papers can be extremely high impact (such as some papers in science and nature), which is not reflected by the quantile; we use bonus points to alleviate this limitation (Han et al. 2020). The author thanks the faculty in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at San Antonio for their input and support. Hai-Chao Han is professor and chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Email: [email protected]