First Author Publications Research Articles

Attitudes of Residents and Program Directors Towards Research in Otolaryngology Residency.

To determine attitudes of residents and program directors towards research during residency training. Survey of current otolaryngology residents and program directors. Otolaryngology residency programs. An anonymous web-based survey ( www.surveymonkey.com ) was sent to 106 program directors (PDs) and 115 program coordinators. The program coordinators subsequently sent it to residents. Fisher exact tests and correlations were used to determine statistically significant differences. Overall, 178 residents and 31 PDs responded to our surveys. All residents surveyed reported some research experience prior to residency. Residents who reported a previous first-author manuscript publication prior to residency were more likely than residents who had no previous first-author publication to report a first-author publication during residency (58.44% vs 27.27%, P < .0001); 33% of the residents reported academics as a desired future career setting after residency. The most significant barrier to research perceived by the residents was time constraint due to residency duties and personal commitments (93% and 74%, respectively). The second and third most common barriers to research were lack of statistical knowledge at 52% and lack of interest in research at 43.6%. Research is a required component of otolaryngology residency training. The most significant barrier in our survey was the lack of protected research time, followed by lack of biostatistical knowledge and interest. Program directors may need to implement structured research rotations tailored to individual residents' research interests and integrate training in research methodology and biostatistics.

Predicting academic career outcomes by predoctoral publication record.

BackgroundFor students entering a science PhD program, a tenure-track faculty research position is often perceived as the ideal long-term goal. A relatively small percentage of individuals ultimately achieve this goal, however, with the vast majority of PhD recipients ultimately finding employment in industry or government positions. Given the disparity between academic career ambitions and outcomes, it is useful to understand factors that may predict those outcomes. Toward this goal, the current study examined employment status of PhD graduates from biomedical sciences programs at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (CU AMC) and related this to metrics of predoctoral publication records, as well as to other potentially important factors, such as sex and time-since-degree, to determine if these measures could predict career outcomes.MethodsDemographic information (name, PhD program, graduation date, sex) of CU AMC biomedical sciences PhD graduates between 2000 and 2015 was obtained from University records. Career outcomes (academic faculty vs. non-faculty) and predoctoral publication records (number and impact factors of first-author and non-first-author publications) were obtained via publicly available information. Relationships between predoctoral publication record and career outcomes were investigated by (a) comparing faculty vs. non-faculty publication metrics, using t-tests, and (b) investigating the ability of predoctoral publication record, sex, and time-since-degree to predict career outcomes, using logistic regression.ResultsSignificant faculty vs. non-faculty differences were observed in months since graduation (p < 0.001), first-author publication number (p = 0.001), average first-author impact factor (p = 0.006), and highest first-author impact factor (p = 0.004). With sex and months since graduation as predictors of career outcome, the logistic regression model was significant (p < 0.001), with both being male and having more months since graduation predicting career status. First-author related publication metrics (number of publications, average impact factor, highest impact factor) all significantly improved model fit (χ2 < 0.05 for all) and were all significant predictors of faculty status (p < 0.05 for all). Non-first-author publication metrics did not significantly improve model fit or predict faculty status.DiscussionResults suggest that while sex and months since graduation also predict career outcomes, a strong predoctoral first-author publication record may increase likelihood of obtaining an academic faculty research position. Compared to non-faculty, individuals employed in faculty positions produced more predoctoral first-author publications, with these being in journals with higher impact factors. Furthermore, first-author publication record, sex, and months since graduation were significant predictors of faculty status.

A quantitative exploration on reasons for citing articles from the perspective of cited authors

Citation is regarded as one of the “norms of science” (Merton in Am Sociol Rev 22(6):635–659, 1957) and is deeply researched by the field of scientometrics. The motivations authors have for citing one another are considered significant and have been the subject of extensive qualitative research such as content analysis, questionnaires, and interviews of citing authors. However, the existing qualitative studies have covered a limited number of samples. To expand the dataset, this paper proposes a quantitative method applied to detecting citation reasons from the angle of citation networks and the attributes of cited authors, including their publication count (the number of single-authored publications, collaborative and first-authored publications as well as collaborative but non-first-authored publications, and number of whole publications), citation count, research topic interests, and gender. By applying the Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs), the current study revealed that authors in the field of information retrieval tend to cite those with more single-authored, collaborative and first-authored, and collaborative but not first-authored publications. Besides, in this field, the number of publications, similar topical domains, and same gender are proven to be significantly favorable in selecting references in our experiment.

Mentoring, Training, and Scholarly Productivity Experiences of Cancer-Related Health Disparities Research Trainees: Do Outcomes Differ for Underrepresented Scientists?

The study aims to explore variation in scholarly productivity outcomes by underrepresented status among a diverse sample of researchers in a community-engaged training program. We identified 141 trainees from a web-based survey of researchers in the National Cancer Institute-funded, Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) (2011-2016). We conducted a series of multiple logistic regression models to estimate the effect of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-defined underrepresented status on four, self-reported, scholarly productivity outcomes in the previous 5years: number of publications (first-authored and total) and funded grants (NIH and any agency). Sixty-five percent (n = 92) indicated NIH underrepresented status. In final adjusted models, non-NIH underrepresented (vs. underrepresented) trainees reported an increased odds of having more than the median number of total publications (> 9) (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.21-8.65) and any grant funding (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 1.77-14.65). Reporting ≥ 1 mentors (vs. none) was also positively associated (p < 0.05) with these outcomes. The CNPC underrepresented trainees had similar success in first-authored publications and NIH funding as non-underrepresented trainees, but not total publications and grants. Examining trainees' mentoring experiences over time in relation to scholarly productivity outcomes is needed.

Quantitative study on Australian academic science

As at the end of 2009, 50 million scholarly papers were in existence, and changes in the global higher education sector are seeing this number grow rapidly. With the impact of university ranking schemes, dramatic changes have occurred in the academic publication system; both the number of publications, and the number of scholars, are increasing rapidly. In this research, we conduct a focused study on the quantitative relationships in Australian academic science. Sample data is selected from three institutions, representing three types of universities in Australia: a leading university, a middle-tier university, and a non-comprehensive university. For our analysis, bibliometric data for 32,056 scholars and 353,334 publications are downloaded. The results show that varying growth rates for scholars (5.6, 6.1, and 7.7%) and journal publications (6.7, 7.4, and 9.7%) for the leading university, the middle-tier university, and the non-comprehensive university respectively. We also evaluate how scholarly publications differ across these three Australian universities types from six aspects: average number of publications per scholar, percentage of first-authored publications, collaboration pattern, average SJR score of publishing journals, percentage of Quartile category of publishing journals, and average citation per publication. Lastly, we consider how the scholarship life-cycle varies in Australian universities in terms of publishing age, thus establishing the quantitative relationship between scholarship life-cycle and publishing performance in Australian universities.

Resident First Author Publications.

Resident First Author Publications.

Academic Productivity of US Neurosurgery Residents as Measured by H-Index: Program Ranking with Correlation to Faculty Productivity

Engagement in research and academic productivity are crucial components in the training of a neurosurgeon. This process typically begins in residency training. In this study, we analyzed individual resident productivity as it correlated to publications across all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited neurosurgery training programs in an attempt to identify how programs have developed and fostered a research culture and environment. We obtained a list of current neurosurgery residents in ACGME-accredited programs from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons database. An expanded PubMed and Scopus search was conducted for each resident through the present time. We tabulated all articles attributed to each resident. We then categorized the publications based on each neurosurgical subspecialty while in residency. A spreadsheet-based statistical analysis was performed. This formulated the average number of resident articles, h-indices, and most common subspecialty categories by training program. We analyzed 1352 current neurosurgery residents in 105 programs. There were a total of 10 645 publications, of which 3985 were resident first-author publications during the period of study. The most common subspecialties among all resident publications were vascular (24.9%), spine (16.9%), oncology (16.1%), pediatric (5.6%), functional (4.9%), and trauma (3.8%). The average resident published 2.9 first-author papers with average of 38.0 first-author publications by total residents at each program (range 0-241). The average h-index per resident is 2.47 ± 3.25. When comparing previously published faculty h-index program rankings against our resident h-index rankings, there is a strong correlation between the 2 datasets with a clear delineation between Top-20 productivity and that of other programs (average h-index 4.2 vs 1.7, respectively, P < .001). Increasing program size leads to a clear increase in academic productivity on both the resident and faculty level (average h-index 1.6, 1.9, 3.9 for 1, 2, and 3 resident per year programs, respectively, P < .001). Resident first-author publications correlated with recently described academic departmental productivity. Subspecialty resident publications are highest in cerebrovascular surgery. Resident research and publication is a key metric for assessing the productivity of academic neurosurgery programs and is consistent with one of the core foci of neurosurgical training.

A multi-institution analysis of general surgery resident peer-reviewed publication trends

BackgroundThe process of taking a research project from conception to publication is one way to encourage surgeons to communicate hypothesis, critically assess literature and data, and defend research conclusions to a broad audience. The goal of this study was to define surgery resident publishing epidemiology and identify characteristics of residents and residency programs that might predict increased publication productivity. Materials and methodsA survey was administered to eight general surgery residency programs to collect residency and resident variables from 1993-2013. The primary endpoint was the number of first-author publications produced per resident. Secondary endpoints included clinical setting at which the former resident was practicing, fellowship pursued, and manuscript quality. ResultsBetween 1993 and 2013, 676 residents graduated, median age was 33 years (range: 29-43 years) and 182 (27%) were female. Three hundred and sixty-six (54%) residents produced 1229 first-author publications. Of these, 112 (31%) residents produced one manuscript, 125 (34%) produced two-three manuscripts, 107 (29%) produced four-nine manuscripts, and 22 (6%) produced 10 or more manuscripts. Publishing ≥1 manuscript in residency was associated with a 1.5 (P = 0.01) increased odds of having attended a top-tier research institution for medical school and a 2.3 (P < 0.001) increased odds of having dedicated research years incorporated into residency. Surgeons practicing at academic centers had 1.7 (P = 0.003) greater odds of having attended top-tier medical schools, and 1.5 (P = 0.02) greater odds of publishing during residency. ConclusionsAdditional research directed at identifying interventions promoting resident publishing and scholastic achievement should benefit all surgery training programs looking to cultivate the next generation of critically thinking surgeons.

Contemporary Trends in Radiation Oncology Resident Research

Totest the hypothesis that recent resident research productivity might be different than a decade ago, and to provide contemporary information about resident scholarly activity. We compiled a list of radiation oncology residents from the 2 most recent graduating classes (June 2014 and 2015) using the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology annual directories. We queried the PubMed database for each resident's first-authored publications from postgraduate years (PGY) 2 through 5, plus a 3-month period after residency completion. We abstracted corresponding historical data for 2002 to 2007 from the benchmark publication by Morgan and colleagues (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:1567-1572). We tested the null hypothesis that these 2 samples had the same distribution for number of publications using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We explored the association of demographic factors and publication number using multivariable zero-inflated Poisson regression. There were 334 residents publishing 659 eligible first-author publications during residency (range 0-17; interquartile range 0-3; mean 2.0; median 1). The contemporary and historical distributions were significantly different (P<.001); contemporary publication rates were higher. Publications accrued late in residency (27% in PGY-4, 59% in PGY-5), and most were original research (75%). In the historical cohort, half of all articles were published in 3 journals; in contrast, the top half of contemporary publications were spread over 10 journals-most commonly International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics (17%), Practical Radiation Oncology (7%), and Radiation Oncology (4%). Male gender, non-PhD status, and larger residency size were associated with higher number of publications in the multivariable analysis. We observed an increase in first-author publications during training compared with historical data from the mid-2000s. These contemporary figures may be useful to medical students considering radiation oncology, current residents, training programs, and prospective employers.

Paediatric cardiology fellowship training: effect of work-hour regulations on scholarly activity.

In 2003, work-hour regulations were implemented by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Much has been published regarding resident rest and quality of life as well as patient safety. There has been no examination on the effect of work-hour restrictions on academic productivity of fellows in training. Paediatric subspecialty fellows have a scholarly requirement mandated by the American Board of Pediatrics. We have examined the impact of work-hour restrictions on the scholarly productivity of paediatric cardiology fellows during their fellowship. We conducted a literature search for all paediatric cardiology fellows between 1998 and 2007 at a single academic institution as first or senior authors on papers published during their 3-year fellowship and 3 years after completion of their categorical fellowship (n=63, 30 fellows before 2003 and 33 fellows after 2003). The numbers of first- or senior-author fellow publications before and after 2003 were compared. We also collected data on final paediatric cardiology subspecialty career choice. There was no difference in the number of fellow first-author publications before and after 2003. Before work-hour restrictions, the mean number of publications per fellow was 2.1 (±2.2), and after work-hour restrictions it was 2.0 (±1.8), (p=0.89). By subspecialty career choice, fellows who select electrophysiology, preventative cardiology, and heart failure always published within the 6-year time period. Since the implementation of work-hour regulations, total number of fellow first-authored publications has not changed. The role of subspecialty choice may play a role in academic productivity of fellows in training.

Publication Productivity of Early-Career Orthopedic Trauma Surgeons

The goals of this study were to: (1) define the publication productivity of early-career orthopedic trauma surgeons over time; (2) compare the early-career publication productivity of recent orthopedic trauma fellowship graduates vs their more senior colleagues; and (3) determine the proportion of fellowship graduates who meet the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) publication criteria for active membership early in their careers. Orthopedic trauma fellowship graduates from 1982 to 2007 were analyzed. A literature search was performed for each fellow's publications for the 6-year period beginning the year of fellowship graduation. Publication productivity was compared between early and recent groups of graduates, 1987 to 1991 and 2003 to 2007, respectively. Fulfillment of OTA publication criteria was determined. Seventy-nine percent of graduates contributed to 1 or more publications. The recent group produced more total publications per graduate (4.06 vs 3.29, P=.01) and more coauthor publications (2.60 vs 2.04, P=.019) than the early group. The number of first-author publications did not differ between groups (1.46 vs 1.25, P=.26). A greater percentage of the recent group met current OTA publication criteria compared with the early group (51% vs 35%, P=.04). The findings showed that recent orthopedic trauma graduates had increased publication productivity compared with their more senior colleagues, although a proportion had not qualified for active OTA membership 6 years into their career. Overall, these data are encouraging and suggest that young orthopedic trauma surgeons remain committed to sustaining a high level of academic excellence.

Introduction of Julián F. Hillyer, Recipient of the Henry Baldwin Ward Medal For 2015

Introduction of Julián F. Hillyer, Recipient of the Henry Baldwin Ward Medal For 2015

A review of literature on medical students and scholarly research: experiences, attitudes, and outcomes.

The aim of medical student research programs is to develop interest in and competencies related to scholarly research within future physicians. Although schools invest in these programs, there is currently no consensus regarding what benefits they confer. The goal of this review is to characterize students' perceptions of research programs during medical school as well as the outcomes attributed to these programs to provide recommendations for their optimization. In June 2013, the authors reviewed the literature (1950-June 2013) and identified 20 reports that provided original data delineating undergraduate medical students' primarily self-reported experiences with, outcomes related to, and attitudes toward research. Students generally perceive their medical school research experiences to be positive in terms of stimulating research interest and developing scholarly research abilities. The majority of students author at least one article, and first-author publications occur more frequently as formal research experiences lengthen. Elective experiences do not differ from mandatory experiences in terms of student satisfaction or productivity. Several studies uncovered negative student perceptions regarding their research experience, including too little acknowledgment, time, and faculty interaction. Published studies were deficient in characterizing effects on future research engagement in participants. These findings suggest that formal medical student research programs can be optimized by improving the recognition of student effort, promoting student-mentor interaction, and allowing students the option to increase the duration of the research experience. Future studies are needed to determine whether these programs affect research participation and productivity later in participants' careers.

Career Outcomes of Graduates of R25E Short-Term Cancer Research Training Programs.

The efficacy of short-term cancer research educational programs in meeting its immediate goals and long-term cancer research career objectives has not been well studied. The purpose of this report is to describe the immediate impact on, and the long-term career outcomes of, 499 medical students and graduate students who completed the Cancer Research Experiences for Students (CaRES) program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) from 1999 to 2013. In summer 2014, all 499 program alumni were located and 96.4 % (481 of 499) agreed to complete a longitudinal tracking survey. About 23 % of CaRES alumni (110 of 499) have published at least one cancer-related paper. Overall 238 cancer-related papers have been published by CaRES alumni, one third of this number being first-authored publications. Nearly 15 % (71 of 481 respondents) reported that their current professional activities include cancer research, primarily clinical research and outcomes research. Of these 71 individuals, 27 (38 %) have completed their training and 44 (62 %) remain in training. Of all respondents, 58 % reported that they administered care to cancer patients and 30 % reported other cancer-related professional responsibilities such as working with a health department or community group on cancer control activities. Of the 410 respondents not currently engaged in cancer research, 118 (29 %) stated intentions to conduct cancer research in the next few years. Nearly all respondents (99.6 %) recommended CaRES to today's students. Challenging short-term educational cancer research programs for medical students and graduate health professional students can help them refine and solidify their career plans, with many program alumni choosing cancer research careers.

Resolution of Respect: Paul Risser, 1939–2014

Resolution of Respect: Paul Risser, 1939–2014

Biomedical Science Ph.D. Career Interest Patterns by Race/Ethnicity and Gender.

Increasing biomedical workforce diversity remains a persistent challenge. Recent reports have shown that biomedical sciences (BMS) graduate students become less interested in faculty careers as training progresses; however, it is unclear whether or how the career preferences of women and underrepresented minority (URM) scientists change in manners distinct from their better-represented peers. We report results from a survey of 1500 recent American BMS Ph.D. graduates (including 276 URMs) that examined career preferences over the course of their graduate training experiences. On average, scientists from all social backgrounds showed significantly decreased interest in faculty careers at research universities, and significantly increased interest in non-research careers at Ph.D. completion relative to entry. However, group differences emerged in overall levels of interest (at Ph.D. entry and completion), and the magnitude of change in interest in these careers. Multiple logistic regression showed that when controlling for career pathway interest at Ph.D. entry, first-author publication rate, faculty support, research self-efficacy, and graduate training experiences, differences in career pathway interest between social identity groups persisted. All groups were less likely than men from well-represented (WR) racial/ethnic backgrounds to report high interest in faculty careers at research-intensive universities (URM men: OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36–0.98, p = 0.04; WR women: OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.47–0.89, p = 0.008; URM women: OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.30–0.71, p<0.001), and URM women were more likely than all other groups to report high interest in non-research careers (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.28–2.90, p = 0.002). The persistence of disparities in the career interests of Ph.D. recipients suggests that a supply-side (or “pipeline”) framing of biomedical workforce diversity challenges may limit the effectiveness of efforts to attract and retain the best and most diverse workforce. We propose incorporation of an ecological perspective of career development when considering strategies to enhance the biomedical workforce and professoriate through diversity.

Ten-Year Publication Trajectories of Health Services Research Career Development Award Recipients: Collaboration, Awardee Characteristics, and Productivity Correlates.

This study's purpose was to identify distinct publishing trajectories among 442 participants in three prominent mentored health services research career development programs (Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality) in the 10 years after award receipt and to examine awardee characteristics associated with different trajectories. Curricula vitae (CVs) of researchers receiving awards between 1991 and 2010 were coded for publications, grants, and awardee characteristics. We found that awardees published at constant or increasing rates despite flat or decreasing rates of first-author publications. Senior-author publications rose concurrently with rates of overall publications. Higher overall publication trajectories were associated with receiving more grants, more citations as measured by the h-index, and more authors per article. Lower trajectory groups were older and had a greater proportion of female awardees. Career development awards supported researchers who generally published successfully, but trajectories varied across individual researchers. Researchers' collaborative efforts produced an increasing number of articles, whereas first author articles were written at a more consistent rate. Career development awards in health services research supported the careers of researchers who published at a high rate; future research should further examine reasons for variation in publishing among early career researchers.

What it takes.

Not long ago, Science Careers posted a widget—you can find it at —that lets early-career scientists calculate the probability that they'll someday become principal investigators (PIs), on the basis of a few standard publication metrics. The widget builds on work published 2 June in Current Biology ( ) in which the study's three authors—all early-career computational biologists—used PubMed data to study the influence of some 200 factors on academic scientists' career trajectories. Built by John Bohannon, a contributing writer for Science Careers, and David van Dijk of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel (the lead author of the Current Biology study), our widget employed a simplified model based on the same data set. ![Figure][1] First-author publications count far more than middle-author publications. ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER The Science Careers widget is less accurate than the full-bore model, but it has the virtue of focusing attention on a handful of the most important parameters. Just enter values for a few mostly familiar metrics, and the widget displays a graph of PI probability—the probability of eventually occupying the last-author position on a peer-reviewed article—versus the parameter of your choosing. That makes it useful for savvy early-career scientists planning their ascents to independence. If they use it that way, they'll learn the following lessons: 1. Be male. The widget's probability plot displays two lines: red for women and blue for men. The blue line is above the red line across the whole range of probabilities, no matter what variable you display on the ordinate. In the scenario I ran, a woman needed two extra first-author publications or seven extra middle-author publications to reach the same probability of becoming a PI as a man with an otherwise identical record. 2. Be selfish. Do you value collaboration? Too bad: In my testing, an extra first-author publication increased the odds of becoming a PI by 17%; it would take eight middle-author publications to get a comparable boost. So, think twice before giving away that prized first-author slot. 3. Be elite. According to our widget, the institution you train at doesn't matter much—unless you're at one of the top 10 universities in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. Then, it matters a lot. In one scenario, moving from the number one institution (Harvard University) to the number two institution (Stanford University) decreased the chance of becoming a PI significantly more than moving from the 10th institution in the ranking (the University of Oxford) to the 100th (the University of Freiburg). 4. Publish in journals with high impact factors. If you've signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment ( ), or you just don't think a metric designed for a journal should be used to evaluate individual scientists, avert your eyes: Journal impact factor has a strong influence on a scientist's probability of attaining PI-ship. It's apples and oranges, but to the extent that a comparison can be made, the influence of journal impact factor seems stronger than that of either the number of citations your most cited article has received or of h-index, which is meant to measure a scientist's productivity and impact. You might say, then, that the impact factor of the journals you publish in matters more than your own personal impact factor. None of these results is terribly surprising, but they are more than a little depressing. These four factors, all of which were found to be among the most important ingredients of academic career success, are at best indirectly linked—and at worst not linked at all—to rigorous, serious, and significant science. The real value of the PI-predictor widget, then, is not that it can help early-career scientists plan their careers; in fact, we should hope they don't use it that way. Its real value, rather, is that it so clearly demonstrates the wide gap between science's ideals and incentives. If we want young scientists to remain idealistic, then we need to figure out how to do a better job rewarding the things that really matter: discovery (often as part of a team) and solutions to society's most compelling problems. [1]: pending:yes

Does Intentional Support of Degree Programs in General Surgery Residency Affect Research Productivity or Pursuit of Academic Surgery?

Many residents supplement general surgery training with years of dedicated research, and an increasing number at our institution pursue additional degrees. We sought to determine whether it was worth the financial cost for residency programs to support degrees. We reviewed graduating chief residents (n = 69) in general surgery at Vanderbilt University from 2001 to 2010 and collected the data including research time and additional degrees obtained. We then compared this information with the following parameters: (1) total papers, (2) first-author papers, (3) Journal Citation Reports impact factors of journals in which papers were published, and (4) first job after residency or fellowship training. The general surgery resident training program at Vanderbilt University is an academic program, approved to finish training 7 chief residents yearly during the time period studied. Chief residents in general surgery at Vanderbilt who finished their training 2001 through 2010. We found that completion of a degree during residency was significantly associated with more total and first-author publications as compared with those by residents with only dedicated research time (p = 0.001 and p = 0.017). Residents completing a degree also produced publications of a higher caliber and level of authorship as determined by an adjusted resident impact factor score as compared with those by residents with laboratory research time only (p = 0.005). Degree completion also was significantly correlated with a first job in academia if compared to those with dedicated research time only (p = 0.046). Our data support the utility of degree completion when economically feasible and use of dedicated research time as an effective way to significantly increase research productivity and retain graduates in academic surgery. Aggregating data from other academic surgery programs would allow us to further determine association of funding of additional degrees as a means to encourage academic productivity and retention.

Career Outcomes of the Graduates of the American Board of Internal Medicine Research Pathway, 1995–2007

In 1995, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) formalized an integrated residency curriculum including both clinical and research training (the Research Pathway), designed to develop careers of physician-scientists. Individuals who completed Pathway training between 1995 and 2007 were surveyed to determine the extent to which graduates established research-oriented careers. In 2012, the authors used a Web-based, 56-question, multiple-choice electronic survey of 813 participants in Research Pathway programs who completed their residency training between the years of 1995 and 2007. Survey questions addressed source and type of funding, research productivity, and job title/content. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed. Forty-seven percent of solicited Pathway graduates participated in the survey. Ninety-seven percent of the respondents completed Pathway training. Ninety-one percent reported some research effort, with a group average of 58.6% of total professional effort spent in research. Seventy-two percent currently hold positions in academic medicine; 8.6% in the biomedical industry; and 2.1% in government medical service. Over 85% reported extramural research funding, with 81.4% receiving research support from federal sources. Among the variables positively correlated with the highest level of research engagement were previous graduate-level research training, any first-author publications arising from the Pathway research experience, and the receipt of extramural career development funding supporting the Pathway research. On the basis of a very high level of active research engagement reported by 385 ABIM Research Pathway graduates, this special research training track appears to be effectively meeting its goal of training biomedical scientists.