Promotion In Academia Research Articles

Promotion in Nursing Higher Education: Answers to FAQs.

Nurses in education, especially at smaller universities, may not be socialized or mentored in ways that would support seeking promotion in academia. Barriers and questions about the promotion process and recommendations about frequently asked questions are given in this article, along with biblical encouragement. Seeking promotion to a higher academic rank can bring enhanced credibility with which to serve God and can be an opportunity to improve one's character and ability to glorify God.

Desired and received support as experienced by faculty of color in nursing academia: A qualitative study.

Faculty of color are crucial to the development of a diverse nursing workforce but remain underrepresented in nursing academia. The purpose of this current study is to identify elements of support received and desired by nursing faculty of color for retention and promotion in academia. A semi-structured interview was used to collect data from 16 faculty of color from nursing schools across the United States. Conventional content analysis was used to identify emerging themes. An analysis of the interviews revealed six major themes pertaining to mechanisms of support for faculty of color: Instill inclusive excellence; value diversity in leadership; intentional faculty development; mentoring to belong; uniqueness of the lived experience; and harnessing the power of networks. This study identifies insights important to the support and development of a diverse nursing academia and discusses implications for academic institutions seeking to enhance support for nursing faculty of color.

Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: A Brief History of Scientific Journals.

Scientific publishing, with about 350-year historical background, has played a central role in advancing science by disseminating new findings, generalizing accepted theories, and sharing novel ideas. The number of scientific journals has exponentially grown from 10 at the end of the 17th century to 100,000 at the end of the 20th century. The publishing landscape has dramatically changed over time from printed journals to online publishing. Although scientific publishing was initially non-commercial, it has become a profitable industry with a significant global financial turnover, reaching $28 billion in annual revenue before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, scientific publishing has encountered several challenges and is suffering from unethical practices and some negative phenomena, like publish-or-perish, driven by the need to survive or get a promotion in academia. Developing a global landscape with collaborative non-commercial journals and platforms is a primary proposed model for the future of scientific publishing. Here, we provide a brief history of the foundation and development of scientific journals and their evolution over time. Furthermore, current challenges and future perspectives of scientific publishing are discussed.

Measuring h-index and scholarly productivity in academic dermatology in Canada.

Promotion in academia heavily relies on research productivity. The h-index is a standardized metric used to quantify research productivity at the individual level. We evaluated factors associated with h -index in dermatology across select Canadian academic centers with special focus on sex and academic rank. Medical academic centers throughout Canada with dermatology training programs were included. For each faculty member, we extracted the following data from public sources: sex, graduate degree, academic rank, years since the Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (FRCPC) certification or equivalent, recent Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) funding and H-index (based on Scopus author profile). Log-linear univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between h-index and these factors. An ordinal logistic regression was performed to explore sex differences in academic ranking. Our results showed that out of 300 faculty members across Canada, 155 were females (51.67%) and 145 were male (48.33%). H-index was available for 279 dermatologists. The average h-index was 8.35 (SD 11.53) and the median was 4.00 (1st quartile = 2.00, 3rd quartile = 10.00). Higher h-index was associated with more years since dermatology certification, successive academic rank, graduate degree and recent CIHR funding, but not with sex. In conclusion, h-index was not associated with sex when controlling for potential confounders. These results could reflect recent demographic changes in the field with an increase in newly appointed female dermatologists. Longitudinal assessment of academic productivity in dermatology is needed to assess the impact of continued efforts to promote equal opportunities in the field.

Does the Number of Publications Matter for Academic Promotion in Higher Education? Evidence from Lebanon

This paper uses unique data from Lebanon to explore the factors affecting promotion in academia. We use the Ordered Probit model to answer the research question empirically. The results indicate that the number of publications is an essential factor affecting promotion decisions. Moreover, our findings indicate a quadratic relationship between age and promotion, reaching a peak at 62 years. After this turning point, age and promotion become negatively correlated. When dividing our sample by academic generations, we find that the number of publications is an important determinant for promotion only for the cohort who graduated after the year 2000. Finally, after dividing by gender, the results suggest that males and females who publish more have equal chances of earning a promotion.

Diversity in Plastic Surgery Authorship: A 14-Year Analysis of 2688 Articles Published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is a duty and privilege. It is essential to the advancement of evidence-based medicine and often used as a proxy for academic achievement, contributing to decisions around promotion in academia. Within plastic surgery, authors have historically been male surgeons affiliated with academic institutions, lacking representation of women, private practice, medical students, and international collaboration. This study analyzes differences in authors' gender, practice affiliation, degree of education, and international collaboration in articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, which was chosen as the representative journal given its high impact factor (3.946) and consistent ranking as the number one journal in plastic surgery worldwide. A list of Breast, Cosmetic, and Hand/Peripheral Nerve articles published between 2006 and 2019 was compiled from the online archive of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Demographic author characteristics were recorded, and statistical analyses were performed to identify trends over time. A total of 2688 articles were analyzed. The proportion of articles written by female authors in the Breast category, authors in private practice with academic affiliation in the Cosmetic section, and U.S. collaboration with other countries increased over time (p = 0.038, p = 0.029, p < 0.001, respectively). First authors with bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees have also been contributing increasingly. This analysis revealed increasing demographic heterogeneity of authors in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery over time, with increasing contributions from women, surgeons in private practice with academic affiliation, medical students, and international collaborations. The Journal is capturing contributions from an increasingly diverse authorship, consistent with the changing demographics of plastic surgeons.

3573 Critical Barriers to Effective Community-Academic Research Partnerships and Potential Solutions

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Background: The importance of engaging community in research and fostering community-academic research partnerships is increasingly acknowledged by Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutes. However, forming and maintaining such collaborations is often hampered by numerous challenges. It is critical to investigate the barriers to effective community-academic partnerships and to develop novel approaches to overcome these barriers. Objective: To explore community and academic perspectives of the challenges faced by community-academic research partnerships and potential solutions to these identified challenges. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Methods: In an effort to explore creative approaches to address these issues, the Community Engagement Program at the Michigan Institute for Clinical &amp; Health Research (MICHR), the CTSA site that serves Michigan, hosted a retreat to elicit the input of community members and academics from across the state. There was a mix of participants ranging from those with established community-academic partnerships to others who were new to community-engaged research and in early stages of forming partnerships. At the retreat, attendees were randomly divided into groups and asked to answer the specific question, “What are your barriers to partnering in research?” After each group identified a set of barriers and reported their findings to the entire room, attendees were asked to work again in their small groups to discuss potential solutions to these barriers. Ideas for solutions were also shared with the entire room. As part of the process of brainstorming about these questions, attendees were asked to document their ideas --- for both barriers and solutions --- on post-it notes which were then grouped by category. Artifacts from the retreat were saved digitally and transcripts made from these records. The findings were then analyzed to identify common themes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Results: Eighty-six participants attended the retreat from across the state of Michigan. Forty-three represented community organizations that focus on addressing a wide array of social determinants of health issues. The remaining forty-three participants represented various academic institutions. The most frequently mentioned challenges to community-academic partnerships were related to communication and relationship building. To overcome barriers in these areas, participants noted that it is critical to collaboratively and explicitly identify shared goals, values and norms in the early stages of partnership development. This was closely linked to the need for additional funding to help foster and strengthen relationships by allowing partners to spend time together to both work and socialize informally, preferably in face-to-face settings. These were deemed crucial for building trust and common ground. In addition, more equitable funding and role distribution --- including shared leadership and governance of research projects between community and academia--- that recognizes and supports the true costs of involvement in research for community members was viewed as important. Other frequently noted issues on the part of community members were the need for greater respect for community partners and for more training opportunities to build capacity within communities to participate in research. Participants from academic institutions emphasized that the current requirements and timeline for promotion in academia make it harder for them to participate in community-engaged research, especially as early career researchers. They maintained that wider recognition of the value of community-engaged research is necessary and that this requires the support of home departments. Finally, participants underscored the importance of building infrastructure to better connect potential partners from the community and academia by making it easier to identify common interests and reciprocal strengths. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Conclusion: The problems faced by community-academic partnerships may be alleviated by working with community and academic members to identify potential solutions. Further work is needed to systematically examine barriers and the efficacy of solutions to enhance community-academic partnerships. Acknowledgements: We thank all attendees of the MICHR Community Engagement retreat for their participation in this activity that explored barriers to effective community-academic partnerships. Their honest and frank feedback was essential to broaching sensitive topics related to partnership development, and to identify realistic and practical solutions. We also thank all members of the planning committee and our colleagues in the Community Engagement Program for their work on bringing together community and academic members for this retreat. This project was supported by grant number UL1TR002240 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).

When can academic researchers rest? An event history analysis on researchers’ research productivity and promotion in academia from 1980 to 2016 in Japan

This study analyzed the factors required for a researcher to become a professor in the humanities and sociology, science and engineering, medicine and biology, and general studies fields. The study focuses on research productivity and analyzes the impact of hiatuses in research production on promotion in universities as well as the time at which such hiatuses have the least impact on promotions. I divided the factors required for promotion into three categories: academic performance (the number of published articles, books, and competitive grants and funding sources acquired), social elements (gender), and elements related to the duration of periods with no research output and their timing. The results show that the probability of promotion to professorship increases as the number of papers in Scopus, the number of books published, and the amount of acquired competitive funds increase. As expected, longer declines in research productivity reduce the probability of promotion. However, it is not always necessary for researchers to publish continuously throughout their careers; the results show that a decline in research productivity other than during the first five years and the period from 20 to 30 years after the start of the research career has no influence on academic promotions.

A time to be promoted. The Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia (Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia).

The study's objectives were to determine (1) the rate at which department of medicine faculty in the United States are promoted, (2) if clinician-educators (CEs) are promoted to Associate Professor at the same rate as clinician-investigators (CIs), and (3) the variables that predict promotion. The Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia was a part-retrospective, part-prospective (from 2000 to 2003) cohort study. Six-hundred and four Internal Medicine junior faculty across the United States who had been registered as new appointees with the Association of American Medical Colleges in 1995 were invited to participate. Twenty-one percent of these had already left their institution when the study began. One hundred and eighty-three Internal Medicine faculty from 87 institutions in 35 states enrolled. The main outcome measure was the time from appointment as Assistant Professor to promotion to Associate Professor. Follow-up was complete for all 183 faculty. Among the faculty that achieved promotion, the estimated median time to promotion was 6.0 years (95% Conf. Int.=5.8 to 6.2). The unadjusted sixth-year promotion rate for CEs was 16%, while for CIs it was 26% (P=.002). Independent negative predictors of promotion included low amount of research time (Hazard Ratio [HR] =0.3, 95% Conf. Int.=0.2 to 0.5), having a manuscript review service (HR=0.4, 95% Conf. Int.=0.2 to 0.7), never meeting with Chairman/Chief about promotion (HR=0.4, 95% Conf. Int.=0.2 to 0.7), low job satisfaction (HR=0.5, 95% Conf. Int.=0.3 to 0.9), and working in the Northeast (HR=0.6, 95% Conf. Int.=0.4 to 1.1). Positive predictors included making between 130 dollars and 149,000 dollars per year (HR=1.9, 95% Conf. Int.=1.1 to 3.4), working more than 60 h/wk (HR=1.9, 95% Conf. Int.=1.1 to 3.0), having a career mentor available (HR=1.8, 95% Conf. Int.=1.1 to 2.9), and having access to a grant office (HR=1.6, 95% Conf. Int.=1.0 to 2.6). CEs and CIs appear to be promoted at different rates. The characteristics that are independently associated with earlier promotion may be helpful for institutions and individual faculty that are committed to achieving promotion efficiently.

A time to be promoted

OBJECTIVE: The study’s objectives were to determine (1) the rate at which department of medicine faculty in the United States are promoted, (2) if clinician-educators (CEs) are promoted to Associate Professor at the same rate as clinician-investigators (CIs), and (3) the variables that predict promotion. METHODS: The Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia was a part-retrospective, part-prospective (from 2000 to 2003) cohort study. Six-hundred and four Internal Medicine junior faculty across the United States who had been registered as new appointees with the Association of American Medical Colleges in 1995 were invited to participate. Twenty-one percent of these had already left their institution when the study began. One hundred and eighty-three Internal Medicine faculty from 87 institutions in 35 states enrolled. The main outcome measure was the time from appointment as Assistant Professor to promotion to Associate Professor. RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for all 183 faculty. Among the faculty that achieved promotion, the estimated median time to promotion was 6.0 years (95% Conf. Int.=5.8 to 6.2). The unadjusted sixth-year promotion rate for CEs was 16%, while for CIs it was 26% (P=.002). Independent negative predictors of promotion included low amount of research time (Hazard Ratio [HR]=0.3, 95% Conf. Int.=0.2 to 0.5), having a manuscript review service (HR=0.4, 95% Conf. Int.=0.2 to 0.7), never meeting with Chairman/Chief about promotion (HR=0.4, 95% Conf. Int.=0.2 to 0.7), low job satisfaction (HR=0.5, 95% Conf. Int.=0.3 to 0.9), and working in the Northeast (HR=0.6, 95% Conf. Int.=0.4 to 1.1). Positive predictors included making between $130 and $149,000 per year (HR=1.9, 95% Conf. Int.=1.1 to 3.4), working more than 60 h/wk (HR=1.9, 95% Conf. Int.=1.1 to 3.0), having a career mentor available (HR=1.8, 95% Conf. Int.=1.1 to 2.9), and having access to a grant office (HR=1.6, 95% Conf. Int.=1.0 to 2.6). CONCLUSION: CEs and CIs appear to be promoted at different rates. The characteristics that are independently associated with earlier promotion may be helpful for institutions and individual faculty that are committed to achieving promotion efficiently.

Looking forward to promotion: characteristics of participants in the Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia.

To determine what clinician-educators consider important for promotion, and what support they find helpful and useful for success. Cross-sectional study. Eighty academic medical centers in the United States. One hundred eighty-three participants of the Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia comprising assistant professors in departments of medicine from 80 different medical schools in 35 states. Differences between clinician-educators' and clinician-investigators' work activities, promotion preparedness, and faculty support needs. One hundred seven (58%) of the faculty were clinician-educators (CEs), and 63 (34%) were clinician-investigators (CIs); the remaining 13 fit neither category. Participants had been in their faculty position for 4.7 years. Ninety-eight percent of CIs reported a publication expectation for promotion, and 75% of CEs also reported such an expectation. More CIs had career mentors available than CEs (68% vs 32%, P <.001). Seventy-nine percent of CIs indicated >10% protected scholarly work time, compared to only 35% of CEs (P <.001). Fifty-three percent of CIs as compared to 32% of CEs (P <.01) meet more often than yearly with their chief/chair for performance review, and more CIs have seen written promotion guidelines (72% vs 51%, P <.01). Clinician educators believed out of 11 job performance areas, research, written scholarship, and reputation were the 3 most important factors that would determine the success of their application for promotion. Both CEs and CIs sense that CIs are more likely get promoted (82% vs 79%). Clinician educators are less familiar with promotion guidelines, meet less often with superiors for performance review, and have less protected time than CI colleagues. There is dissonance between CEs' beliefs and previously published data from promotion committee chairs in the importance given to specific aspects of job performance.

Gender and promotion in Academia

Studies and analyses changes to the promotion policies and practices at the University of Western Australia (UWA) and identifies outcomes by gender. Suggests that there are quite a few factors to be addressed before gender equity in academia at UWA is obtained. Discusses, in depth, how to try to deal with lack of networks, socialization, the dual‐role burden, masculine organizational culture and gendered power imbalance in the workplace. States that, although great inroads have been made at UWA, statistics show that there are still very fundamental barriers to be addressed to aid further improvement for women academics.

Thomas Hodgkin and Benjamin Harrison: crisis and promotion in academia.

Thomas Hodgkin and Benjamin Harrison: crisis and promotion in academia.