The effects of tenure and promotion on surgeon productivity

Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct

CONTEXT

This narrative review article explores research integrity and the implications of scholarly work in medical education. The paper describes how the current landscape of medical education emphasizes research and scholarly activity for medical students, resident physicians, and faculty physician educators. There is a gap in the existing literature that fully explores research integrity, the challenges surrounding the significant pressure to perform scholarly activity, and the potential for ethical lapses by those involved in medical education.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review article are to provide a background on authorship and publication safeguards, outline common types of research misconduct, describe the implications of publication in medical education, discuss the consequences of ethical breaches, and outline possible solutions to promote research integrity in academic medicine.

METHODS

To complete this narrative review, the authors explored the current literature utilizing multiple databases beginning in June of 2021, and they completed the literature review in January of 2023. To capture the wide scope of the review, numerous searches were performed. A number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were utilized to identify relevant articles. The MeSH terms included "scientific misconduct," "research misconduct," "authorship," "plagiarism," "biomedical research/ethics," "faculty, medical," "fellowships and scholarships," and "internship and residency." Additional references were accessed to include medical school and residency accreditation standards, residency match statistics, regulatory guidelines, and standard definitions.

RESULTS

Within the realm of academic medicine, research misconduct and misrepresentation continue to occur without clear solutions. There is a wide range of severity in breaches of research integrity, ranging from minor infractions to fraud. Throughout the medical education system in the United States, there is pressure to publish research and scholarly work. Higher rates of publications are associated with a successful residency match for students and academic promotion for faculty physicians. For those who participate in research misconduct, there is a multitude of potential adverse consequences. Potential solutions to ensure research integrity exist but are not without barriers to implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pressure in the world of academic medicine to publish contributes to the potential for research misconduct and authorship misrepresentation. Lapses in research integrity can result in a wide range of potentially adverse consequences for the offender, their institution, the scientific community, and the public. If adopted, universal research integrity policies and procedures could make major strides in eliminating research misconduct in the realm of academic medicine.

Determinants and barriers to junior faculty well-being at a large quaternary academic medical center: A qualitative survey

BACKGROUND

Increasing levels of burnout among trainees and faculty members at all levels is a major problem in academic medicine. Junior faculty members may be at unique risk for burnout and have unique needs and barriers that contribute to attrition, job satisfaction, and overall workplace well-being.

METHODS

Twenty-seven faculty members at the assistant professor level at a large, quaternary referral academic medical institution were interviewed. A qualitative analyst with no reporting relationship to faculty was used as the proctor. Seven scripted questions targeting faculty well-being and institutional barriers to well-being were administered, and the responses were coded for common themes between respondents.

RESULTS

Respondents most commonly identified clinical work (26%), research (19%), and teaching (19%) as the best aspects of their job. Among respondents, 3% stated they were not able to devote as much time as they would like to work they enjoyed and found most meaningful. Of these respondents, 44% cited "insufficient help" as the root cause. Also, 33% stated time spent writing and managing institutional review board requirements was a major contributor, and 22% cited both clinical volume/performance benchmarks and administrative responsibilities as significant barriers. The most common responses to departmental factors that can be improved included moving meetings to during the workday versus after hours, establishing a similar value system/metric for all faculty, and providing more opportunities to interact with faculty across divisions. The most common barriers to change identified were difficulty hiring research support, patient volume and clinical demands, and a pervasive culture of continuing to work after the workday has ended. At an institutional level, provision of childcare and promotion of basic science research were identified as areas for improvement. More actionable items were identified at the departmental rather than institutional level (53 vs 34).

CONCLUSIONS

Junior faculty well-being is most affected at the department level. Qualitative data collection from junior faculty regarding barriers to well-being and academic/clinical productivity can be invaluable for departments and institutions seeking to make cultural or systemic improvements.

Rate of publication hastens, but number of publications slows academic promotion

Openings for an assistant professor often attract a hundred or more applicants. This allows hiring committees to select highly productive candidates based on their number of publications. Applicants with more rapid publication would be hired with little or no postgraduate experience, but those with slower rates of publication would need more postgraduate experience. Our results show an association of more postgraduate experience, slower rates of publication, a smaller research group, and slower promotion when years are measured from PhD granting; conversely little or no postgraduate experience is generally associated with more rapid publication, a larger research group, and faster promotion. These results suggest the unexpected result that the number and rate of publication have opposite effects on the years from PhD granting to promotion which parametric survival analysis using a log-logistic distribution with gamma frailty confirmed. Statistical analysis revealed that number and rate of publication are reciprocal suppressor variables which were individually weaker predictors of years to promotion, but much more powerful when combined. Intuitively, this is probably because number and rate of publication contain information about other variables with: (1) number of publications being associated with more postgraduate experience, a smaller research group, and slower rates of publication; and (2) rate of publication being associated with a larger research group, and less postgraduate experience. Further, we found that promotion committees closely follow institutional tenure policy requiring promotion a fixed number of years after hiring as an assistant professor which may partially explain why promotion committees fail adjust the number and rate of publication for research group size as fairness in promotion might favor. Our results suggest that both postgraduate experience and research group size influence a professor's career.

Pearls and Pitfalls for Surgical Investigators in Basic and Translational Research

Surgeon-scientists are uniquely positioned to contribute to our understanding of the fundamental biology of surgical disease and to bring a unique perspective that leads to innovation in the diagnosis and treatment of many conditions. However, it is broadly recognized that due to the changing landscape of surgery and science, the surgeon-scientists of today face multiple challenges in this pursuit. Today, surgeon-scientists face an increased pressure from their department and hospital to generate clinical revenue, decreased availability of grant funding, greater administrative burden, rising complexity of fundamental research, increased medical school debt, and a growing desire for work-life balance. Given that survival of surgeon-scientists is critical for the progress of not only surgery but medical innovation at large, many surgical societies, notably the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS) and the Society of University Surgeons (SUS) have focused on the issues faced by surgeon-scientists. In this regard, the Basic and Translational Research Committee of the AAS and the Research Committee of the SUS organized a hot topic session at the 2021 Academic Surgical Congress in which experts discussed and addressed many issues concerning the surgeon-scientist pathway. This manuscript provides an overview of the issues discussed at this session.

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

BACKGROUND

Faculty promotion and research productivity are important for the overall career trajectory of academic orthopaedic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role that subspecialty and demographic factors play in research productivity and academic advancement among orthopaedic surgeons.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of academic rank among orthopaedic surgeons in 2018. We identified academic orthopaedic programs in the United States from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) and collected publicly available data for surgeons, including fellowship training, gender, faculty rank, geographic region, and years since residency, from institutional websites. Research productivity was defined with the Hirsch index (h-index) from Scopus, and the m-index was calculated from the surgeon's h-index and the date of the first publication. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine the variables that are associated with associate professorship, full professorship, and the h-index.

RESULTS

In this study, we identified and included 2,879 academic orthopaedic surgeons. Completion of a fellowship in foot and ankle (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.45 [1.17 to 5.15]), sports medicine (2.15 [1.12 to 4.15]), trauma (2.83 [1.42 to 5.66]), hand and upper extremity (2.20 [1.13 to 4.28]), musculoskeletal oncology (3.28 [1.49 to 7.21]), or upper-extremity reconstruction (3.20 [1.31 to 7.81]) was associated with associate professorship. Completion of a trauma fellowship was associated with full professorship (2.93 [1.27 to 6.77]). Completion of a fellowship in adult reconstruction (difference in least-squares means [95% confidence interval]: 5.01 [1.22 to 8.81]), sports medicine (4.52 [1.00 to 8.04]), spine (5.40 [1.63 to 9.18]), or upper-extremity reconstruction (10.64 [6.15 to 15.12]) or the completion of multiple fellowships (5.12 [1.27 to 8.94]) were independently associated with a higher h-index. Women had significantly lower h-indices than men at the assistant (median [interquartile range]: 3 [1 to 6] versus 4 [2 to 8]) and full professor (17 [12 to 26] versus 22 [13 to 34]) levels. There were no differences in the m-index between men and women at any academic rank.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopaedic subspecialty selection is independently associated with research productivity and academic rank. The differences in research productivity may be important to consider when evaluating orthopaedic surgeons for promotion. While female surgeons had lower h-indices than their male counterparts, this difference was not seen when using the m-index.

A 22-Year Analysis of the Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation Mentored Research Career Development Award in Fostering Vascular Surgeon-Scientists

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgeon scientists shape the future of our specialty through rigorous scientific investigation and innovation in clinical care as well as train the next generation of surgeon-scientists. The Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation (SVSF) supports the development of surgeon-scientists through the Mentored Research Career Development Award (SVSF-CDA) Program, providing supplemental funds to recipients of NIH K08/K23 grants. The ongoing success of this mission was evaluated.

METHODS

Curriculum vitae of the 41 recipients of the SVSF supplemental funding between 1999-2021 were collected and reviewed to evaluate academic achievements to define the programmatic accomplishments, return on investment, and to identify areas for strategic improvement.

RESULTS

For nearly 22 years, the SVSF awarded supplemental funds for 31 K08 and 10 K23 grants to SVS members from 32 institutions. Thirty-four have completed K-funding while 7 are still being supported. Eleven (27%) awardees have been female including 6 (75%) of the current awardees. However, there has only been little ethnic/racial diversity in the program. Awardees obtained K-funding approximately 4 years after becoming faculty. Eleven awardees (27%) were supported by Howard Hughes, NIH F32, or T32 grants during training. To date, the SVSF has committed $12 million to the SVSF-CDA Program. Among the 34 who have completed their K-funding, 21 (62%) successfully obtained NIH R01, Veterans Affairs, or Department of Defense funding. The awardees have secured over $114M in federal funding, representing a 9.5-fold financial return on investment for the SVSF. In addition to research endeavors, 11 awardees (27%) hold endowed professorships and 19 (46%) have secured tenure at their institutions. Many of the awardees hold or have held leadership positions including 18 (44%) Division Chiefs, 11 (27%) Program Directors, 5 (12%) Chairs of Departments of Surgery, and one (2%) Dean. Eleven (27%) have served as president of a regional or national society and 24 (59%) participate in NIH study sections. Of the 34 who have completed their K-funding, 15 (44%) continue to maintain active independent research funding.

CONCLUSION

The SVSF-CDA Program is highly effective in the development of vascular surgeon-scientists who contribute to the leadership and growth of academic vascular surgery with a 9.5-fold return on investment. The number of female awardees has increased in recent years but ethnic/racial diversity remains poor. Despite the fact that 62% successfully transitioned to federal funding, less than half remained funded over time. Retention in research and increasing diversity for the awardees are major concerns and are important areas of strategic focus for the SVSF.

NIH Funding of Researchers in Surgery: Decreased Career Development Awards Over Time

BACKGROUND

Over time, NIH funding has become increasingly competitive. In addition, academic surgeons' research competes with time required for patient care, operating, and administrative work. Due to these competing interests for surgeons, we hypothesize that the percentage of NIH grants awarded to researchers from departments of surgery is decreasing.

METHODS

The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was queried for the number and value of new and renewal R01 grants, and career development awards noting which surgery departments received awards from 1998 to -2018. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The number of career development awards granted to researchers from departments of surgery decreased significantly over time (P = 0.007) while new R01's and R01 renewal awards were stable. The number of grants awarded to researchers from all procedural departments were compared to non-procedural departments and again, career development awards decreased significantly (P = 0.005) over time but new R01's and R01 renewals stayed stable. Looking at the difference in average dollar amount received for new R01, renewal R01, or career development awards between department of surgery awardees and non-surgery over time, there was no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

NIH funding is becoming increasingly competitive and surgeons have many competing interests. Our study found that there has been a significant decrease in career development awards to department of surgery awardees and procedural specialists. The decrease in receipt of these awards is particularly concerning given that they are meant to provide protected time for developing researchers and thus have potential consequences for future research.