Search

Purpose: Mentorship has many notable benefits. Research about mentorship for physician associates/assistants (PAs) is limited. This study sought to uncover more detailed information on mentorship and its effect on PAs. Methods: A survey was sent via email to all PAs and advanced practice registered nurses at our institution. Subgroup analysis was performed on PA respondents, including satisfaction and independent predictors associated with mentorship. Results: Of the 295 PAs, 63 (21.4%) identified having a mentor. Those with a mentor were statistically more likely to function as a mentor (OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.5-4.9], P = .001), have an academic rank of assistant professor or higher (OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.3-5.5], P = .007), be under age 45 years (OR 6.1 [95% CI 2.1-17.4], P = .008), be less than 10 years into their career (OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.7-5.7], P = .002), and be satisfied with mentorship (88.9% versus 23.9%, P < .001). Conclusions: Mentorship for PAs is crucial and can boost academic promotion and career satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issues surrounding gender equality are—and should be—front and centre in the water resources community, and other science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Very necessarily, the focus tends to be on recruitment, offering support for students and early career academics. The leaky pipeline concept used to describe the incremental loss of women from STEM fields with career duration describes a disproportionate loss of senior women, creating a parallel problem where highly qualified, top tier academics are lost from the system after significant financial and personnel investment by institutions. Ultimately, the leaky pipeline undermines the extensive investment of the hydrology and other STEM communities in equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility (EDIA) recruitment and retention programmes by cutting short career ambitions and the trajectories of diverse top performing individuals, resulting in no net benefit of EDIA policy investments and a lack of diversity with seniority. Addressing this critical gender gap requires the attention and support of the hydrology community of practice with specific focus on generating opportunities for advancement, confronting systemic and structural biases and improving education around allyship. Institutions and professional organizations need to consciously grow diversity in leadership and recognize and outwardly manage the perception of academic excellence around slow research and education that attracts increased diversity. Supporting allyship, reducing competitiveness among community members and reinforcing collaboration will not only attract, but retain, a higher proportion of diversity in the hydrology community, academia and STEM professions in general. It is time for the water resources (and other STEM) communities to demand broader accountability and recognition of the barriers to women, implement and reward more diverse definitions of research excellence, and offer allyship training to the community of practice at large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to assess the journal article publications accrued by a recent cohort of counselor educators (N = 376) over the first ten years since attaining their doctoral degrees. After ten years, these counselor educators had accrued a median of three journal article publications. There were not any clear trends in publications over the first ten years since degree completion except for an upper trend in publication counts for counselor educators at R1 universities. Journal article publication counts could be predicted from academic rank, the funding source of their current universities, and Carnegie Classifications. Implications for counselor education are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Females have been traditionally underrepresented in academia across multiple medical specialties, including radiology. The present study investigated primary investigators (PIs) who received National Institutes of Health (NIH) radiology funding between 2016 and 2019 to establish if there was a correlation between NIH grants, gender, academic rank, first and second tier leadership positions, geographic location, and professional awards. Materials and Methods: Funding information was obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER) website for 2016–2019. Information for each PI was obtained from academic institutional websites, LinkedIn, and Doximity. Mann–Whitney U tests and chi-square analyses were performed to compare and determine associations between gender and the stated variables of interest. Results: Of the 805 radiology PIs included in this study, 78% were male. There was a significant association of gender with the attainment of the highest academic rank (p = 0.026), with females occupied more of the assistant professor ranks (M:F = 1:1.5) and less of the professor ranks (F:M = 1:1.2). Between genders, there was no significant difference in first and second tier leadership positions (p = 0.497, p = 0.116), and postgraduate honors and awards (p = 0.149). The greatest proportion of grants was awarded in the setting of sole male PIs (55%) and the least proportion of grants were awarded when the contact PI and other project leader were female (1%). Conclusion: Despite having similar academic credentials, including number of leadership positions and postgraduate honors and awards, female radiology PIs who have received NIH grants continue to be underrepresented in higher academic ranks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background At the conclusion of residency candidate interview days, faculty interviewers commonly meet as a group to reach conclusions about candidate evaluations based on shared information. These conclusions ultimately translate into rank list position for The Residency Match. The primary objective is to determine if the post-interview discussion influences the final scores assigned by each interviewer, and to investigate whether interviewer characteristics are significantly associated with the likelihood of changing their score. Based on Foucault’s ‘theory of discourse’ and Bourdieu’s ‘social capital theory,’ we hypothesized that interviewer characteristics, and the discourse itself, would contribute to score changes after a post-interview discussion regarding emergency medicine residency candidates. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of candidate scores for all candidates to a four-year emergency medicine residency program affiliated with Yale University School of Medicine during a single application cycle. The magnitude and direction of score changes, if any, after group discussion were plotted and grouped by interviewer academic rank. We created a logistic regression model to determine the odds that candidate scores changed from pre- and post-discussion ratings related to specific interviewer factors. Results A total of 24 interviewers and 211 candidates created 471 unique interviewer-candidate scoring interactions, with 216 (45.8%) changing post-discussion. All interviewers ranked junior to professor were significantly more likely to change their score compared to professors. Interviewers who were women had significantly lower odds of changing their individual scores following group discussion (p=0.020; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.89). Conclusions Interviewers with lower academic rank had higher odds of changing their post-discussion scores of residency candidates compared to professors. Future work is needed to further characterize the influencing factors and could help create more equitable decision processes during the residency candidate ranking process.

This study explores into the evolving landscape of faculty publication and academic rank attainment at Haramaya University. A comprehensive analysis was conducted, aligning the university's faculty promotion criteria with the recent Ministry of Education (MoE) standard, with a specific focus on research output. The research methodology comprised a meticulous examination of university records/archival research, including minutes documented by the university's appointment, promotion, and scholarship committee. In addition, the study enriched its insights through in-depth interviews with faculty members. The investigation explored academic promotion, gender dynamics, and the differentiation between native and expatriate faculty. The findings underscored certain disparities, particularly in terms of fields of study, nationality, and gender. A notable discrepancy was observed, with a higher proportion of male faculty members attaining promotions, a phenomenon more pronounced at elevated academic ranks such as Associate Professor and Full Professor. To address these disparities and nurture a more inclusive research environment, Haramaya university promotion policy may partially help as most of the values is given to publication, which was already fixed by the guideline prepared by Ethiopian MoE. A call for transparent promotion standards, robust mentorship programs, and focused support for women in research and leadership roles emerge as a means to bridge the gender gap in staff promotions. Furthermore, additional research and analysis must be undertaken to attain a more profound understanding of the factors influencing publishing trends, facilitate staff promotions, and ultimately advance the promotion of academic excellence.

Objective: To evaluate the attitudes and prevalence of academic/clinical rank among practicing physician associates/ assistants (PAs) in different specialties and geographic locations. Methods: We surveyed PAs in clinical practice with a bias toward hospital/academic-based clinicians. The survey was a modified instrument to evaluate perceptions, attitudes, barriers, and prevalence of academic rank. Results: Overall, 65% of respondents indicated academic/ clinical rank opportunities were of interest, but 60.8% noted that they were not eligible to hold rank in their institutions. Nearly 55% indicated a desire to hold rank, but 81.9% of respondents did not hold rank. The survey response rate was 22.9%. A lack of departmental emphasis was a common barrier to rank. Conclusions: Clinically practicing PAs clearly have a desire or interest in academic/clinical rank, but barriers persist. Further development of opportunities to hold academic/ clinical rank with mentorship may improve PA careers and propel professional advancement and parity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Our goal in this study was to determine female representation on editorial boards of high-ranking emergency medicine (EM) journals. In addition, we examined factors associated with gender disparity, including board members’ academic rank, departmental leadership position, h-index, total publications, total citations, and total publishing years.Methods: In this retrospective study, we examined EM editorial boards with an impact factor of 1 or greater according to the Clarivate Journal Citations Report for a total of 16 journals. All board members with a doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathic medicine degree, or international equivalent were included, resulting in 781 included board members. We analyzed board members’ gender, academic rank, departmental leadership position, h-index, total publications, total citations, and total publishing years.Results: Gender disparity was clearly notable, with men holding 87.3% (682/781) of physician editorial board positions and women holding 12.7% (99/781) of positions. Only 6.6% (1/15) of included editorial board chiefs were women. Male editorial board members possessed higher h-indices, total citations, and more publishing years than their female counterparts. Male board members held a greater number of departmental leadership positions, as well as higher academic ranks.Conclusion: Significant gender disparity exists on EM editorial boards. Substantial inequalities between men and women board members exist in both the academic and departmental realms. Addressing these inequalities will likely be an integral part of achieving gender parity on editorial boards.

In examining the influence of National Institute of Health (NIH) funding on gender distribution within dermatology leadership roles, a cross-sectional analysis of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited dermatology residencies was conducted. The gender of leadership faculty was verified using online resources, while institutions were categorized by their 2022 NIH dermatology funding status. Results revealed that male dermatologists predominantly occupied department chair roles, whereas female dermatologists were more frequently found in associate program director roles, regardless of funding status. Notably, women held most program director positions in the top NIH-funded group, though this difference was not statistically significant due to a smaller sample size. The overall gender distribution has shown progress from 2021, with a significant rise in female associate program directors and a narrowing gender gap for chairs and program directors. Despite NIH funding rank playing a minimal role in gender distribution, our study underscores positive strides towards gender equality in dermatology leadership. Further advocacy for gender balance and additional research on underlying factors are essential for continued progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Ciencias Economicas is the property of Universidad Nacional del Litoral and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Ciencias Economicas is the property of Universidad Nacional del Litoral and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the sex representation among principal investigators (PIs) in US cardiac surgery clinical trials. Summary Background Data: Being a principal investigator in a US clinical trial confers national recognition among peers. Sex representation among principal investigators (PIs) in US cardiac surgery clinical trials has not been evaluated. Methods: We evaluated 124 US cardiac surgery trials registered on Clin-icalTrials.gov from 2014 to 2019. Sixty trials included PIs (n = 266) from 128 institutions that had a combined total of 1040 adult cardiac surgeons. We examined sex representation among junior-level (instructor or assistant professor) and senior-level (associate, full, or Emeritus professor) PIs by calculating the participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR), whereby a PPR range of 0.8 to 1.2 reflects equitable representation. Results: The pool representation percentage was 6.1% (63/1040) for women and 93.9% (977/1040) for men. A total of 266 PI positions were assigned to adult cardiac surgeons: 6 (9.5%; PPR = 0.37) from the female pool and 260 (26.6%; PPR = 1.04) from the male pool (P = 0.004). The percentage of PIs with studies funded by industry was 9.5% ofthe female pool (PPR = 0.39) and 25.0% of the male pool (PPR = 1.04) (P = 0.009). No National Institutes of Health-funded or other funded trials had female PIs. An overall trend was observed toward disproportionally more men than women among PIs, especially at the senior level (P = 0.027). Conclusions: Equitable opportunities for PI positions are available for junior-level but not senior-level cardiothoracic surgeons. These results suggest a need for active engagement and promotion of equal opportunities in cardiac surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study was conducted to characterize the gender disparities within academic pain management departments in the United States, specifically focusing on its relation to research and academic leadership. This will allow for targeted improvements in efforts made to reduce gender gaps within academic pain medicine.  Methods: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis study evaluating pain management faculty of various positions at academic institutions across the United States. We utilized publicly available data on faculty positions and sex to analyze research impact, H-index, number of publications and citations through bibliometric and linear regression analysis.  Results: Our analysis found that female faculty had significantly less research output to male faculty. The three research measurement indices used in this study including H-index, number of publications, and number of citations were significantly lower in females than in males among associate and full professor faculty ranking. Multivariable analysis did not display any significant disparities of research output at the division director and department chair level.  Discussion: As in many areas of medicine, there continues to be a significant gender disparity in academic pain management departments, particularly with regard to leadership positions and research impact within the field. Our study found that female pain physicians had a significantly less research output based on the three variables of H indices, number of publications, and number of citations compared to their male counterparts. This has been shown to have the impact on discrepancies in female faculty ranking. Interestingly, these variables were not significantly different between male and female faculty members of the same level of leadership except for program director. There are various contributory reasons for these disparities, including implicit biases, lack of mentorship, and familial obligations. Addressing some of these factors can help narrow the schism and promote greater gender equality within academic pain management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the last half-century, there has been increased representation of women in medicine. Despite this increase, there continues to be underrepresentation of women in medical leadership positions. The objective of this study was to investigate the phenomenon of gender disparity in the leadership of professional societies of dermatology worldwide. Methods: Online databases were used to extract the names of global dermatologic societies. Individual society websites were accessed to obtain information on executive members. Data not available on society websites were obtained through internet searches. Scopus was used to obtain H-indexes and other bibliometric outcomes. Results: Our data collection spanned 92 countries, with 1733 society leaders identified and information available for 1710. In North America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Middle East, women were in a minority in dermatology professional society leadership. In South America, Central America, and Africa, women were in a slight majority. Across all professional societies, the role of president was more frequently held by men (n = 95) as opposed to women (n = 75). Female leaders were less likely to hold concurrent academic positions as deans/chairpersons/directors (83.33%) than their male counterparts (92.06%). The median H-index of female leaders (9) was lower than that of men (14). Conclusion: Gender disparity exists in leadership positions in professional dermatology societies. Cultural/continental specific factors should be explored further. Enhancement of institutional support, mentorship, and sponsorship for female dermatologists should be encouraged.

This study aimed to identify the role of Qassim University in providing a supportive environment for entrepreneurship education approach in the light of the Kingdom’s vision 2030. The study used the descriptive survey method, by administering a questionnaire, cosisting of (40) items, to a sample of (318) heads of departments and faculty members at Qassim University. The results of the study showed that the approach of entrepreneurship education ranked first, while the employment management for the entrepreneurship education approach ranked second. The arithmetic mean of the participants’ assessment on the two dimensions of the questionnaire was (3.23) with a standard deviation of (0.26), which corresponds to a medium role degree. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the mean of participants’ assessment regarding the role of Qassim University in providing a supportive environment for the entrepreneurship education approach in the light of the Kingdom’s Vision 2030, attributed to the variables of college and academic rank. On the other hand, there were differences attributed to the job title variable, in favor of the department head. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Professional identity development in higher education and its implications is a growing interest in the literature. Research indicates that the professional identity of academic lecturers has been unstable and influenced by a variety of personal and contextual factors. With a lack of a clear definition of professional identity in literature, we composed The Professional Identity COVID Scale (PI-COVID) specifically designed to measure lecturers' professional identity in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. The items focused on three components: occupational security, academic skills, and combining teaching and research. The purpose of the present study was to examine the associations between lecturers' age, years of seniority, academic rank, and work permanence on the professional identity of academic lecturers post-COVID-19 in Israel. Participants were 95 academic lecturers teaching in universities and colleges. Using self-report questionnaires, participants filled the PI-COVID scale. Results showed that age is negatively and significantly associated with PI-COVID. Moreover, seniority years, academic rank, and work permanence are associated with more COVID-19 challenges. Findings showed that lecturers without work permanence and with lower academic rank reported higher occupational insecurity during the pandemic, which emphasizes the vulnerability of younger lecturers and their need for confidence and stability, especially during a crisis event. Thus, our study contributes to the existing literature by better understanding the post-COVID-19 professional identity of academic lecturers. Implications and limitations for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and Objectives: Female physicians in academic medicine have faced barriers that potentially affect representation in different fields and delay promotion. Little is known about gender representation differences in United States academic radiology departments, particularly within the most pursued subspecialties.Purpose: To determine whether gender differences exist in United States academic radiology departments across seven subspecialties with respect to academic ranks, departmental leadership positions, experience, and scholarly metrics.Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study from November 2018 to June 2020, a database of United States academic radiologists at 129 academic departments in seven subspecialties was created. Each radiologist's academic rank, departmental leadership position (executive-level - Chair, Director, Chief, and Department or Division Head vs vice-level - vice, assistant, or associate positions of executive level), self-identified gender, years in practice, and measures of scholarly productivity (number of publications, citations, and h-index) were compiled from institutional websites, Doximity, LinkedIn, Scopus, and official NPI profiles. The primary outcome, gender composition differences in these cohorts, was analyzed using Chi2 while continuous data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. The adjusted gender difference for all factors was determined using a multivariate logistic regression model.Results: Overall, 5086 academic radiologists (34.7% women) with a median 14 years of practice (YOP) were identified and indexed. There were 919 full professors (26.1% women, p < 0.01) and 1055 executive-level leadership faculty (30.6% women, p < 0.01). Within all subspecialties except breast imaging, women were in the minority (35.4% abdominal, 79.1% breast, 12.1% interventional, 27.5% musculoskeletal, 22.8% neuroradiology, 45.1% pediatric, and 19.5% nuclear; p < 0.01). Relative to subspecialty gender composition, women full professors were underrepresented in abdominal, pediatric, and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05) and women in any executive-level leadership were underrepresented in abdominal and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05). However, after adjusting for h-index and YOP, gender did not influence rates of professorship or executive leadership. The strongest single predictors for professorship or executive leadership were h-index and YOP.Conclusion: Women academic radiologists in the United States are underrepresented among senior faculty members despite having similar levels of experience as men. Gender disparities regarding the expected number of women senior faculty members relative to individual subspecialty gender composition were more pronounced in abdominal and nuclear radiology, and less pronounced in breast and neuroradiology. Overall, h-index and YOP were the strongest predictors for full-professorship and executive leadership among faculty.Key Results: ● Though women comprise 34.7% of all academic radiologists, women are underrepresented among senior faculty members (26.1% of full professors and 30.6% of executive leadership) ● Women in junior faculty positions had higher median years of practice than their male counterparts (10 vs 8 for assistant professors, 21 vs 13 for vice leadership) ● Years of practice and h-index were the strongest predictors for full professorship and executive leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionThe gender demographics within urology are changing as more women are entering the workforce. Since research productivity strongly influence career advancement, we aim to characterize gender differences in scholarly productivity and promotions in a cohort of graduated academic urologists.Materials and methodsUrologists who graduated between 2002 and 2008 from 34 residency programs affiliated with the top 50 urology hospitals as ranked in 2009 by U.S. News & World Report were followed longitudinally. Only urologists affiliated with an academic teaching hospital were included for analysis.ResultsA total of 543 residents graduated, 459 (84.5%) males and 84 (15.5%) females. Of these, 173 entered academia, 137 (79.2%) males and 36 (20.8%) females. Women had fewer publications compared to men (mean 19.3 versus 61.7, p = 0.001). Fewer women compared to men were promoted from assistant professor 11 (30.6%) versus 83 (60.6%), p = 0.005. Fewer women achieved associate professor 10 (27.8%) versus 67 (48.9%), p = 0.005 or professor ranks 1 (2.8%) versus 16 (11.7%), p = 0.005 respectively compared to men. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, after controlling for the number of total publications and number of years since graduation, gender was not predictive of achieving promotion, OR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.31-2.13), p = 0.673.ConclusionsWomen are underrepresented in senior faculty roles in urology. Scholarly productivity seems to play a major role in academic promotion within urology. With increasing women in academic urology, further studies are needed to explore predictors of promotion and how women can achieve higher leadership roles in the field.

Academic productivity, a key feature of academic neurosurgery, has been linked to academic rank, subspecialty, and institutional rank. Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) has emerged as a new metric of scholarly output that can make field-normalized comparisons between researchers, a feature unavailable in prior metrics such as h-index. Here we evaluate the influence of academic rank and neurosurgical subspecialties on RCR scores. We identified 1640 academic neurosurgeons from 115 ACGME-accredited programs in the United States, along with their neurosurgical specialty and demographic information, using publicly available data. Mean RCR (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) for each neurosurgeon were queried from the iCite database, which included publications from 2002–2020. m-RCR and w-RCR scores were compared across subspecialties and academic rank using multivariable regression while controlling for demographic factors. Multivariable analysis indicated that academic neurosurgeons in general neurosurgery (P = 0.039) and pediatric neurosurgery (P = 0.003) had lower m-RCR scores than their peers in other subspecialties. w-RCR did not differ significantly among subspecialties. Higher academic rank was associated with increased m-RCR (P < 0.05) and w-RCR scores (P < 0.0001). Professors have a higher m-RCR score relative to assistant professors, while general and pediatric neurosurgery were linked to lower m-RCR values. Although neurosurgical subspecialty choice did not influence w-RCR, a higher w-RCR score corresponded to a higher academic rank. Overall, the RCR metric can be utilized for field-normalized comparisons of faculty who differ in academic rank and subspecialty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Though there are an increasing number of female medical graduates, women remain underrepresented in academic medicine. There have been several reasons to explain this gender disparity, including marital status, number of children, number of hours worked, job flexibility, perceptions of women as inferior leaders, gender bias, sexual harassment, and unsupportive academic climates. Aims: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between scholarly productivity and the representation of female gastroenterologists in academia. Specifically, scholarly productivity measured by the h-index and academic rank were explored to determine if there were gender disparities in academic productivity and rank in gastroenterology. Methods: Gastroenterology departmental listings were obtained from the Fellowship and Residency Interactive Database of the American Medical Association. The Scopus database was used to record each physician's h-index. Statistical analyses were conducted with Wilcoxon rank-sum test, which compared matched samples by academic rank, and ANOVA tests, which compared multiple academic ranks. Results: Out of 1703 academic gastroenterologists, women account for 25% of academic physicians. Women have statistically lower h-indices at the level of Assistant Professor (p = 0.0012), and at the level of Chair (p = 0.01). There was no difference in h-indices between male and female at the rank of Associate Professor and Professor. Conclusions: While these results mirror patterns appreciated in other fields of medicine, the results at the rank of Chair may suggest that despite the lower h-index compared to their male counterparts, females are perceived as having strong inherent leadership skills outside of academic productivity that are also conducive to leading a department and may be contributing to their rise to Chair. Keywords: gender gap; academic gastroenterologists; scholarly productivity; academic rank; H-index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the demographics of CORE grant recipients (Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts) over the last decade and evaluate disparity among recipients as compared with otolaryngology overall. To assess whether procurement of a grant predicts pursuit of an academic career. Study Design: Analysis of grant recipients' bibliometrics. Setting: Academic medical center. Methods: The list of recipients of grants from 2010 to 2019 was obtained from the website of the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Demographics of recipients were collected through an internet search, including gender, race, residency program, and h -index. Recipients from 2010 were searched to determine current academic faculty rank. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare these factors with otolaryngology overall. Results: The distribution of gender among recipients over the last decade remained nearly constant, with no significant difference versus residents in otolaryngology (P >.05). However, there were significantly more female recipients when adjusted for gender differences in the field overall (P <.01). Asians were relatively overrepresented, while Black and Hispanic residents were underrepresented (P <.01). Many recipients (52.6%) trained at institutions recognized as the best training programs with reputations for quality research output. The h -index of recipients decreased over the last decade (P <.01). The h -index of duplicate winners was significantly higher than those of nonduplicate winners (P <.01). After adjusting for gender and rank, recipients were significantly more likely to hold academic positions (P <.01). Conclusion: CORE grants are favorably distributed as related to gender and racial disparities, and recipients frequently go on to achieve high levels of academic success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gender disparities in academic promotion and leadership are well documented. Scholarly impact is essential for promotion. The Hirsch-index (h-index) is a measure of impact using number of publications and citations. We sought to (i) evaluate breast surgery fellowship faculty in North America by academic rank and research impact using the h-index, (ii) determine whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity, and (iii) determine the relationship between academic rank, h-index, and gender. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of h-index and academic rank disparity in breast surgery faculty by gender was performed. We reviewed the faculty of Society of Surgical Oncology-accredited breast surgery fellowships in February 2019. Rank, gender, academic appointment, years in practice, program directorship, National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center association, size of the program, and h-index (via Scopus) were recorded. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed. Results: Fifty-two programs were identified, and 209 faculty had an h-index. Of them, 69.9% were women and 30.1% were men. h-index increased with academic rank although there was considerable overlap between ranks. Women were underrepresented at the professor level (46.4%), but accounted for the majority of assistant professors (91.5%, p < 0.001), and program directors (70.7%). Men professors had a significantly higher mean h-index than women professors, p < 0.001. However, women associate professors had a higher mean h-index than men, but this did not reach significance. Conclusions: Mean h-index increased with increasing rank among breast surgery faculty for both genders. Average h-index was significantly higher for men professors compared to women professors. No significant gender difference in h-index was found for assistant professors. For associate professors, h-index for women was higher than for men. Women are underrepresented at higher academic ranks despite forming the majority of breast surgical teaching faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Mentorship has been identified as a key component of success in business and in academic medicine. Methods: After institutional review board approval of the study, an email survey was sent to anesthesiologists in one anesthesiology department to assess mentorship status. A survey link was sent to nonrespondents at 2 weeks and 4 weeks. All participants were deidentified. The identification of a mentor was compared by gender, academic rank, and years of practice. Results: Among 233 anesthesiologists, 103 (44.2%) responded to the survey. More than 90% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that having a mentor is important to career success. Of the 103 respondents, 31 (30%) indicated they had a mentor. Overall, 84% of the identified mentors were men; however, this percentage differed significantly between men and women respondents (95% versus 60%; P =.03). Characteristics associated with having a mentor included younger age (P =.007), fewer years since finishing training (P =.004), and working full time (P =.02). For respondent age and years since finishing training, there was some evidence that the association was dependent on the gender of the respondent (age-by-gender interaction, P =.08; experience-by-gender interaction, P =.08). Discussion: Anesthesiologists in this department believed that mentorship led to more academic success. Few women mentors were reported, and women were unlikely to identify a mentor once advanced past an assistant professor rank. Most respondents believed that mentorship was important for overall career success, but only approximately one-third identified a mentor at the time of the survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Academic achievement is an integral part of the promotion process; however, there are no standardized metrics for faculty or leadership to reference in assessing this potential for promotion. The aim of this study was to identify metrics that correlate with academic rank in hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgeons.Materials and Methods: Faculty was identified from 17 fellowship council accredited HPB surgery fellowships in the United States and Canada. The number of publications, citations, h-index values, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for each faculty member was captured.Results: Of 111 surgeons identified, there were 31 (27%) assistant, 39 (35%) associate, and 41 (36%) full professors. On univariate analysis, years in practice, h-index, and a history of NIH funding were significantly associated with a surgeon's academic rank (P < .05). Years in practice and h-index remained significant on multivariate analysis (P < .001).Discussion: Academic productivity metrics including h-index and NIH funding are associated with promotion to the next academic rank. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The aim of the study is to investigate sex differences in academic rank, publication productivity, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding among oculoplastic surgeons and whether there is an association between American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) membership and scholarly output. Methods Sex, residency graduation year, and academic rank were obtained from institutional websites of 113 U.S. ophthalmology programs. H-indices and m-quotients were obtained from the Scopus database. NIH funding information was obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool. Results Of the 272 surgeons, 74 (30.2%) were females. When adjusted for career duration, differences in female to male proportions were only significant at the rank of assistant professor (assistant: 74.3 vs. 48.5%, p = 0.047; associate: 18.9 vs. 24.6%, p = 0.243; full professor: 13.0 vs. 37.2%, p = 0.114). Women had a shorter career duration than men [10.0 (interquartile range or IQR 12.0) vs. 21.0 (IQR 20.0) years; p

This study aimed to investigate the factors that can influence the peer review process of translated books at King Saud University. A 4-domain questionnaire was distributed electronically to collect the data necessary to answer the questions of the study. The mean scores showed that the “Review ethics” domain came first, and “Experience of the reviewer” came last. ANOVA and MANOVA showed that the variables of gender, academic rank, major, and review experience did not reveal significant differences, while experience in translation variable revealed significant differences. It was concluded that the review of translated books does not differ considerably from the review of studies published in per-reviewed journals. Unlike a research paper, a translator of a book does not have to draw findings and conclusions. The findings of this study support the findings of peer review studies in terms of the insignificance of training, academic rank, experience in review, and gender.

Professional identity development in higher education and its implications is a growing interest in the literature. Research indicates that the professional identity of academic lecturers has been unstable and influenced by a variety of personal and contextual factors. With a lack of a clear definition of professional identity in literature, we composed The Professional Identity COVID Scale (PI-COVID) specifically designed to measure lecturers’ professional identity in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. The items focused on three components: occupational security, academic skills, and combining teaching and research. The purpose of the present study was to examine the associations between lecturers’ age, years of seniority, academic rank, and work permanence on the professional identity of academic lecturers post-COVID-19 in Israel. Participants were 95 academic lecturers teaching in universities and colleges. Using self-report questionnaires, participants filled the PI-COVID scale. Results showed that age is negatively and significantly associated with PI-COVID. Moreover, seniority years, academic rank, and work permanence are associated with more COVID-19 challenges. Findings showed that lecturers without work permanence and with lower academic rank reported higher occupational insecurity during the pandemic, which emphasizes the vulnerability of younger lecturers and their need for confidence and stability, especially during a crisis event. Thus, our study contributes to the existing literature by better understanding the post-COVID-19 professional identity of academic lecturers. Implications and limitations for future research are discussed.

In the context of shifting population demographics in the United States, a diverse workforce in health care can lead to improved patient outcomes and enhance access to culturally competent care for minorities. The objective of this study was to analyze and quantify the relationship of gender, race, and academic rank, tenure status, and degree in American academic surgical faculty. A 12-y retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the data from the Association of American Medical Colleges was performed. The distribution of race and gender across academic ranks, tenure, and degree types were recorded from 2007-2018. Simple descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis was used to analyze the time trends and association between gender and race across academic rank, tenure status, and degree types. When averaged over the 12 y of this study, there were significantly more whites (69.8%) and males (74.5%) among the academic surgery faculty compared with other races and females, respectively (P value <0.05). Asians and females experienced the greatest increase in proportional representation across all academic ranks with an absolute increase of 7% and 5% in full professor, 5% and 6% in associate professor, and 7% and 3% in chairperson (P value <0.05), respectively. No significant association was observed between gender and race with tenure status or degree type. Female and Asians are increasing in proportional representation; however, racial and gender disparities remain prevalent at higher academic ranks and positions of leadership, especially among black and Hispanic academic surgeons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: academic productivity; academic rank; diversity; ethnicity; gender; gender disparity; health inequity; publication; race; underrepresented minority EN academic productivity academic rank diversity ethnicity gender gender disparity health inequity publication race underrepresented minority 685 687 3 03/28/22 20220401 NES 220401 SP 1 sp Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY SP 2 sp Department of Medicine (Critical Care), Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY SP 3 sp David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA SP 4 sp Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR SP 5 sp Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Miami Health System, Miami, FL *See also p. 535. In this issue of Critical Care Medicine, Mehta et al ([8]) set out to characterize the demographic diversity of authors publishing as part of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (CCCTG) from 1994 to 2020. [Extracted from the article]

Background: At the conclusion of residency candidate interview days, faculty interviewers commonly meet as a group to reach conclusions about candidate evaluations based on shared information. These conclusions ultimately translate into rank list position for The Residency Match. The primary objective is to determine if the post-interview discussion influences the final scores assigned by each interviewer, and to investigate whether interviewer characteristics are significantly associated with the likelihood of changing their score. Based on Foucault's 'theory of discourse' and Bourdieu's 'social capital theory,' we hypothesized that interviewer characteristics, and the discourse itself, would contribute to score changes after a post-interview discussion regarding emergency medicine residency candidates., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of candidate scores for all candidates to a four-year emergency medicine residency program affiliated with Yale University School of Medicine during a single application cycle. The magnitude and direction of score changes, if any, after group discussion were plotted and grouped by interviewer academic rank. We created a logistic regression model to determine the odds that candidate scores changed from pre- and post-discussion ratings related to specific interviewer factors., Results: A total of 24 interviewers and 211 candidates created 471 unique interviewer-candidate scoring interactions, with 216 (45.8%) changing post-discussion. All interviewers ranked junior to professor were significantly more likely to change their score compared to professors. Interviewers who were women had significantly lower odds of changing their individual scores following group discussion (p=0.020; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.89)., Conclusions: Interviewers with lower academic rank had higher odds of changing their post-discussion scores of residency candidates compared to professors. Future work is needed to further characterize the influencing factors and could help create more equitable decision processes during the residency candidate ranking process., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Coughlin RF et al.)

Objective: To evaluate gender distribution in Canadian ophthalmology societies' leadership and to determine associations between gender, academic productivity, and institutional rank., Methods: We identified members and assessed their gender composition using publicly available updated webpages. SCOPUS database was used to gather research metrics., Results: In this study, data was collected from 12 Canadian ophthalmology societies, which included 277 executive committee members. Of these, 70.5% (196) were male and 29.1% (81) were female ( p  < .0001). Males were significantly more prevalent in presidential leadership roles (39 males vs. 23 females, p  = .02), while females were more represented in other leadership categories (77 females vs. 61 males, p  = .03). The Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS) showed an upward trend in female representation from 19.2% in 2016 to 42.3% in 2021. Research productivity showed a positive correlation with society leadership rank, with a correlation coefficient of 0.732 for the m-index ( p  < .001) and 0.356 for the h-index ( p  < .05). Academic rank was also positively correlated with society leadership rank, with a correlation coefficient of 0.536 ( p  < .001). There was no significant difference in h-index (12.7 ± 1.0 for males vs. 13.8 ± 1.5 for females, p  = .85) or number of publications (48.6 ± 5.1 for males vs. 60.0 ± 11.3 for females, p  = .83) between male and female executive members, but females had a higher m-index (0.67 ± 0.05) compared to males (0.58 ± 0.03, p  < .05). In academic rank, males were more likely to be associate professors (25% vs. 5% for females, p  = .0001) or instructors (14.8% vs. 6.3% for females, p  = .05), while a higher proportion of females held assistant professor positions (47.5% for females vs. 30.1% for males, p  = .006)., Conclusion: In this study, we found that males were more prevalent in executive positions, particularly in presidential roles among Canadian ophthalmology societies. The gender distribution in leadership reflected the gender composition of practicing ophthalmologists in Canada. There was a positive correlation between research productivity and society rank, as well as academic position and society rank. Male and female executive members had similar h-index and number of publications, but females had a higher m-index. These findings highlight the need for continued efforts to address gender disparities in ophthalmology leadership.

Background/Objective: The h‐index is a measure of research achievement. Individuals with similar h‐indices should be equivalent in terms of scientific impact. However, this value is inherently biased toward fields with higher visibility and readership. To utilize the power of h‐indices in predicting future research success and as a benchmark for academic advancement, niche fields like pediatric dermatology must be examined independently. Methods: Publicly available data were examined. A list of current pediatric dermatologists were obtained from the Society for Pediatric Dermatology's member directory. The following demographic information was obtained: fellowship certification year, PhD status, prior pediatric residency training, state/region, practice setting, academic appointment, number of publications, and h‐index. Descriptive and analytic statistics were calculated. Results: A total of 317 pediatric dermatologists were included. Practice setting distribution was as follows: 54.3% academic, 32.5% non‐academic, and 13.3% combined. H‐index differed significantly based on pediatric dermatology certification year (P <.001), increasing as time from certification increased. Those in academics had higher h‐indices than those in both non‐academic and combined practice settings (P <.001 and.007, respectively). Professors (25.0) had higher h‐indices than associate professors (11.0), who had higher h‐indices than assistant professors (4.4) (P <.001). Conclusions: H‐index increased with increasing academic rank and was highest among those working in academics. For pediatric dermatologists considering application for promotion, the h‐index for each level can serve as a useful benchmark to guide decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background To assess mentorship experiences among the faculty of a large academic department of medicine and to examine how those experiences relate to academic advancement and job satisfaction. Methods Among faculty members in the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Medicine, we assessed personal and professional characteristics as well as job satisfaction and examined their relationship with two mentorship dimensions: (1) currently have a mentor and (2) role as a mentor. We also developed a mentorship quality score and examined the relationship of each mentorship variable to academic advancement and job satisfaction. Results 553/988 (56.0%) of eligible participants responded. 64.9% reported currently having a mentor, of whom 21.3% provided their mentor a low quality score; 66.6% reported serving as a mentor to others. Faculty with a current mentor had a 3.50-fold increased odds of serving as a mentor to others (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.84–6.67, p

Objective: To evaluate gender and racial profiles of US academic radiology faculty.Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of the American Association of Medical College database of radiology faculty members from 2006 to 2017 by academic rank, chair position, race or ethnicity, and gender. The data were described with annual proportions and average annual counts and fit to a Poisson regression model. Comparison data were taken from American Association of Medical College on matriculants at US medical schools and from ACGME on radiology residents.Results: Women increased significantly in the ranks of professor by 4.5%, associate professor by 4.8%, and assistant professor by 4.8% (P < .05). Asian and multiple race non-Hispanic radiologists increased in the rank of professor by 5.9% and 3.1%, respectively (P < .05). Among department chairs, only women and Asian faculty increased by 6.4% and 7.5%, respectively (P < .05). The proportion of women chairs increased from 10.0% (19 of 191) in 2006 to 17.4% (39 of 224) in 2017. Black and Hispanic chairs collectively represented less than 10% of the total chairs every year.Discussion: The significant percent annual increase in women faculty in academic ranks and chair positions suggests that the radiology faculty is becoming more diverse. However, the decreasing proportion of women with increasing academic ranks within each year of the study period suggests attrition or lack of promotion of women radiology faculty. The disparity in black and Hispanic faculty members and chairs suggests that emphasis should continue to be placed on tailored recruitment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery. Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis. We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P =.009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P <.001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P =.187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P <.001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P <.012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P <.047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P <.037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P <.037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P <.001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P <.001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P <.001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P =.005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P =.017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P =.416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P <.001). Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives/hypothesis: Characterization of leadership within otolaryngology is key to evaluating trends and promoting program advancement. This study evaluates representation of women in otolaryngology holding residency and fellowship directorships, or chair positions, comparing sex differences in academic rank, years in practice, and scholarly activity.Study Design: Cross sectional analysis.Methods: A comprehensive list of otolaryngology residency and fellowship directors from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited programs in 2017 to 2018 was compiled. Academic rank and years in practice were determined from departmental websites, with online search tools used as secondary resources. The h-index was utilized as a measure of research productivity. Regression analysis was performed to analyze these variables.Results: Among the 306 directorships, women held 57 (18.6%) of these positions, 27 (26.5%) residency and 30 (14.7%) fellowship directorships. Of the 99 chair positions, five (5.1%) were held by women. The majority (53.6%) of male directors were full professors, whereas only 26.3% of females were full professors (P = .04). Mean years in practice for female directors (13.9 ± 6.8) was less than that of male directors (20.3 ± 9.4, P < .0001). Similarly, mean h-index for female directors (11 ± 7.2) was lower than for males (17.5 ± 12.5, P = .0001). After controlling for academic rank and years of practice in a multivariable regression, the h-index remained lower for women than for men (P = .03).Conclusions: Women are disproportionately underrepresented in positions of residency and fellowship directorships, and chair positions, consistent with other specialties. Women in leadership had lower academic ranks, fewer years of practice, and lower h-indices than their male counterparts. This may represent a shift in academic otolaryngology as female otolaryngologists seek early involvement in leadership.Level Of Evidence: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:1664-1669, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beyond the statistics, the underlying causes for women's absence as academics and leaders in higher education institutions (HEIs) in sub-Saharan African countries have not been sufficiently understood. Taking Ethiopia as an example, this study offers unique insights into the careers of female academic staff. The study employed exploratory sequential mixed method design using secondary analysis of nationwide data, institutional survey, and a follow-up qualitative in-depth interview with 13 female full-time academic staff purposively selected from three major public HEIs. The findings reveal that relative to men, the likelihood that women academics hold the rank of 'lecturer' decreases by 50% while the probability of assuming assistant professorship or above declines by 72%. Furthermore, it was found that women's entry into, and success in academia is impacted by complex set of factors ranging from hegemonic gender beliefs that trigger the use of double standards disfavoring women to deliberate exclusion during selection, employment, promotion, and appointment in leadership positions. Finally, the implications for policy and human resource management practices of HEIs are identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To better understand promotion timelines across gender and race/ethnicity and how academic output impacts promotion in urology.Methods: We examined the 2017 census. An academic subset was asked questions regarding their promotion timeline. We obtained demographic, academic output, and family responsibility data.Results: Of 2926 academic urologists who identified a position of Assistant, Associate, or Full professor, 11.2% were women, 75% were White, and 94% were non-Hispanic. Men authored more papers and achieved principal investigator status more often than women. Non-Hispanics authored more papers than Hispanics. On average, women took 1.2 years longer than men to advance from Assistant to Associate Professor (7.3 years [95% CI: 6.8-7.8] vs 6.1 years, [95% CI: 5.8-6.6, P <.001]). Advancement from Associate to Full Professor was similar between women and men (6.0 years [95% CI: 5.1-6.9] vs 6.6 [95% CI: 6.1-7.1, P = .25]). Compared to women, men were more likely to experience rapid promotion (≤4 years) to Associate Professor (odds ratio 3 [95% CI: 1.8-5.1]). There was no statistical difference across race/ethnicity for promotion from Assistant to Associate, Associate to Full Professor, or rapid promotion.Conclusion: We identified disparities in promotion times based on gender but not race and ethnicity. The number of under-represented minority faculty in urology is low. Understanding the causes of disparities should be a priority in order to support fair promotion practices and retention of diverse faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

本研究旨在探討各職級（正、副、助理教授）大學教師其主持研發計畫數（非營利、校內、產學、政府、跨校）對研究產能（研討會、學術期刊論文數）之預測模型。研究資料採用南部一所私立醫學大學於 2006-2015 年共 10 年期間之教師人事資料，串接該校之校務資料庫中與本研究相關之變項，並採用描述性統計、階層迴歸分析等統計方法進行分析。主要研究結果如下：一、各職級教師均以主持政府計畫為主，但其他類計畫數與研究產能表現不盡相同；二、總體上，職級高者主持計畫數多，也正向預測研究產能；三、年輕但職級高者有較高的校內、政府與跨校計畫數和研究產能；四、不同職級教師的期刊論文發表途徑各異，正教授學術產出模式最靈活多元。本研究提出大學組織、教師個人策略規劃之建議；同時， 優化校務資料蒐集有益進一步分析，以期掌握研究產能趨勢，降低大學教師職能落差。 This study modeled the relationship between types of research funding and faculty research productivity. Utilizing faculty data between 2006 and 2015 and matching with variables of interest in the institutional data system of a private medical university in Southern Taiwan, this IRB-approved study employed hierarchical regression analyses to test the assumption that types of research funding affected research productivity in numbers of publications and conference papers. The results confirmed that funding sources significantly affected faculty research productivity. Specifically, we found the following: (1) governmental programs were the most effective funding resources, and faculty performance varied across academic ranks; (2) a higher rank was correlated with more funded projects, which positively predicted research productivity; (3) younger faculty with a higher academic rank, however, outperformed others in numbers of funded projects and publications; and (4) full professors had the most diverse and sophisticated strategies regarding academic productivity in numbers of funded projects and publications. Suggestions are made herein for appropriate institutional changes and individual strategies for career advancement. A more sophisticated data collection strategy should be established to monitor trends in faculty productivity and to close the gap between the faculty capacity and job demands.

Background: This study aims to examine potential disparities in scholarly performance based on sex, academic rank, leadership positions, and regional distribution of faculty in accredited Head and Neck Surgery fellowships in the United States. Methods: Online faculty listings for 37 accredited fellowships were organized according to academic rank, leadership position, sex, and institutional location. Academic productivity was measured with three bibliometric indices: h‐index, m‐index, and the weighted relative citation ratio. Results: A total of 732 faculty members were included, of which 153 (21%) were female. Fifty‐eight males (89.2%) held leadership positions, compared to seven females (10.8%). There was no significant difference in overall productivity between male and female senior faculty. There were regional differences in productivity by sex. Conclusions: Females are underrepresented in senior faculty and within three common leadership positions, although scholarly productivity for male and female senior faculty and for those in leadership positions is similar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]