Core Values and Evaluation Processes Associated with Academic Tenure

Analysis of Research and Scholarship Criteria Within Promotion and Tenure Documents of US Pharmacy Schools

Objective. To describe criteria for evaluating faculty scholarship within the promotion and tenure guidance documents of US schools and colleges of pharmacy.Methods. Promotion and tenure documents were obtained from the websites of US pharmacy schools or requested via electronic mail, and institutional characteristics were collected from publicly available online data. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to systematically catalogue document characteristics and criteria for promotion and tenure.Results. Promotion and tenure guidance documents from 121 (85%) of 142 pharmacy schools were analyzed. Institutions were 55% public and equally distributed across Carnegie institutional classifications as well as geographic and extramural funding stratifications. Publications (94%) and grants and contracts (87%) were the most frequently included criteria for faculty advancement. More than 50% of schools recognized the criteria within promotion and tenure guidance documents but did not explicitly require faculty to achieve them before receiving promotion and/or tenure. For institutions that required publications for advancement, the most frequently required criterion was publication in peer-reviewed journals (47%). Few schools (22%) documented a specific number of required publications.Conclusion. This analysis provides a comprehensive review of scholarship criteria in academic pharmacy promotion and tenure guidance documents. There was wide variability among scholarship criteria, and documents often lacked specific language defining scholarship requirements. As a result, faculty may find the documents less helpful for self-assessment and preparation toward promotion and/or tenure. These benchmark data can assist pharmacy faculty and administrators in developing and revising promotion and tenure guidance documents to include clear criteria and better align with peer institutions.

Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores

The predictive validity of peer review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has not yet been demonstrated empirically. It might be assumed that the most efficient and expedient test of the predictive validity of NIH peer review would be an examination of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications produced from funded projects. The present study used a large dataset to examine the rationale for such a study, to determine if it would satisfy the requirements for a test of predictive validity. The results show significant restriction of range in the applications selected for funding. Furthermore, those few applications that are funded with slightly worse peer review scores are not selected at random or representative of other applications in the same range. The funding institutes also negotiate with applicants to address issues identified during peer review. Therefore, the peer review scores assigned to the submitted applications, especially for those few funded applications with slightly worse peer review scores, do not reflect the changed and improved projects that are eventually funded. In addition, citation metrics by themselves are not valid or appropriate measures of scientific impact. The use of bibliometric indices on their own to measure scientific impact would likely increase the inefficiencies and problems with replicability already largely attributed to the current over-emphasis on bibliometric indices. Therefore, retrospective analyses of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications resulting from funded grant applications are not valid tests of the predictive validity of peer review at the NIH.

Gender differences in promotion and scholarly impact: an analysis of 1460 academic ophthalmologists

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, gender differences in academic promotion have been documented within surgical fields. To the best of our knowledge, gender discrepancies in association with scholarly productivity have not been well assessed among academic ophthalmologists. Because research productivity is strongly associated with academic career advancement, we sought to determine whether gender differences in scholarly impact, measured by the h-index, exist among academic ophthalmologists.

DESIGN

Academic rank and gender were determined using faculty listings from academic ophthalmology departments. h-index and publication experience (in years) of faculty members were determined using the Scopus database.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

RESULTS

From assistant professor through professor, the h-index increased with subsequent academic rank (p < 0.001), although between chairpersons and professors no statistical difference was found (p > 0.05). Overall, men had higher h-indices (h = 10.4 ± 0.34 standard error of mean) than women (h = 6.0 ± 0.38 standard error of mean), a finding that was only statistically significant among assistant professors in a subgroup analysis. Women were generally underrepresented among senior positions. When controlling for publication range (i.e., length of time publishing), men had higher h-indices among those with 1 to 10 years of publication experience (p < 0.0001), whereas women had scholarly impact equivalent to and even exceeding that of men later in their careers.

CONCLUSION

Women in academic ophthalmology continue to be underrepresented among senior faculty. Although women surpass men in scholarly productivity during the later stages of their careers, low scholarly impact during the earlier stages may impede academic advancement and partly explain the gender disparity in senior academic positions.

Development and initial psychometric properties of the University of Texas at San Antonio Future Disposition Inventory

We describe the development and initial psychometric properties of a 24-item self-report measure, the University of Texas at San Antonio Future Disposition Inventory (UTSA FDI). This instrument is designed to evaluate future related thoughts and feelings that are associated with suicide-related risk behaviors: positive focus, suicide orientation, and negative focus. The items were generated by clinical and nonclinical samples. The structure of the instrument was defined in a sample of 350 university undergraduate students (Study 1). Using CFA, we confirmed the fit of the 3-factor solution in an independent sample of college age students (n=452; Study 2). Scale reliability estimates were good (all rho's>or=.80) in both studies. Known-groups validation analyses showed that scores on each scale were useful in differentiating the responses of the study groups. Correlates for the scales were identified when scores on measures of suicide-related risk and general psychological symptoms were included as validation self-report instruments.