Search

The two aims of this study were to: 1) identify the 100 most impactful contributors to English-language gerontological journals, and 2) map their respective disciplinary affiliations to help illuminate the perspectives shaping gerontological discourse. Toward that end, we conducted a secondary data analysis of a publicly available database of the world's leading scientists. After extracting all scientists in the gerontological category, we rank ordered them according to a composite measure of scholarly impact that controls for self-citations and author order while also calculating other bibliometric statistics. Disciplinary affiliations were assigned based upon the Classification of Instructional Programs codes developed by the National Center for Education Statistics at the United States Department of Education. The results reveal the mean contributor to the gerontological literature published 241.15 (SD = 203.95) papers and – after correcting for self-citations – had an h-index of 50.05 (SD = 25.00), and an hm-index 23.67 (SD = 7.50). A diverse array of professional affiliations characterized the contributors with a plurality being located in the health professions category, followed by the biological and biomedical science, and social sciences categories. The results reveal that gerontology is home to some of the world's leading scientists. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's collective knowledge development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine established the Pittman Scholars Program in 2015 to elevate scientific impact and to support the recruitment and retention of highly competitive junior faculty. The authors examined the impact of this program on research productivity and on faculty retention. The authors evaluated publications and extramural grant awards and available demographic data for the Pittman Scholars compared to all junior faculty in the Heersink School of Medicine. From 2015 to 2021, the program awarded a diverse group of 41 junior faculty members across the institution. For this cohort, ninety-four new extramural grants were awarded and 146 grant applications were submitted since the inception of the scholar award. Pittman Scholars published a total of 411 papers during the term of the award. The faculty retention rate of the scholars was 95%, comparable to that of all Heersink junior faculty, with 2 recipients being recruited to other institutions. The implementation of the Pittman Scholars Program has been an effective strategy to celebrate scientific impact and acknowledge junior faculty members as outstanding scientists at our institution. The Pittman Scholars award allows junior faculty to use funds for their research program, publications, collaborations, and career advancement. The Pittman Scholars are recognized at local, regional, and national levels for the work they are contributing to academic medicine. The program has served as an important pipeline faculty development program and an avenue for individual recognition for research-intensive faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study identified the 100 most impactful global contributors to religion journals and mapped their respective disciplinary affiliations. To conduct this investigation, we performed a secondary data analysis of a Scopus-derived database featuring the world's leading scientists. The mean contributor published 51.93 papers, had an h-index of 13.57, and an hm-index 11.50. Most contributors were located in the USA with the most common disciplinary affiliations being religion, non-specialized (n = 22), sociology, non-specialized (n = 21), sociology of religion (n = 20), and theology (n = 11). The results reveal that religion discourse is populated by some of the leading scholars in the world. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's knowledge development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to understand the relationship, in historic preservation, between equity/social justice and the field's intra-disciplinary scholarship by using a critical heritage studies lens. Intra-disciplinary scholarship is defined as the scholarly literature produced by the 58 tenured and tenure-track faculty associated with historic preservation degree programmes in the United States through the end of 2018. A content analysis of this literature shows a general lack of engagement by authors on issues related to the public's needs, including topics related to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. A citation analysis of this literature reveals meagre faculty productivity and low impact for intra-disciplinary preservation scholarship. In order for the field to sustain itself, it needs to reconsider its anti-intellectual tendencies, increase its socially relevant scholarly publications, and embrace more critical, people-centred approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study identified the top 100 most impactful global contributors to social work journal scholarship. Methods: To conduct this descriptive study, we used a publicly available database of the world's leading scientists. After extracting all scholars in the social work category, we rank ordered them according to a composite measure of scholarly impact that controls for self-citations and author order. Results: All identified contributors to the profession's journals ranked highly relative to the larger global population of published scientists. Furthermore, 23 individuals were in the top 100,000 scientists globally. Scholars were based in seven different nations and most had solid social work credentials according to three measures: current affiliation in a social work program and Master of Social Work/doctoral degree status. Conclusions: The results reveal that social work is home to some of the world's leading scientists. Leveraging their skills and knowledge can help advance the profession's collective knowledge development and dissemination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Midcareer faculty are the "keystone" of academia. Faculty in midcareer experience an increase or change in responsibilities and expectations as well as reduced support and mentorship usually extended to junior faculty. Nonetheless, midcareer can be an ideal time for re-evaluating and defining one's career path and taking advantage of leadership and service opportunities. Successful navigation of midcareer is essential to ensure nursing faculty remain in the academic setting, contribute to nursing science, and have a satisfying career. In this paper, we present strategies midcareer nurse faculty can consider to maintain balance and advance their careers even during challenging times. These strategies include appraising career goals, maintaining and expanding mentoring relationships, seeking and utilizing opportunities for leadership development, selecting service strategically to advance career goals, preparing for the unexpected, maintaining/expanding scholarly productivity, learning when to say yes or no, embracing lifelong learning, and improving visibility of one's work. • Midcareer is an ideal time to appraise career goals and expand mentoring. • Midcareer is an opportunity for leadership development and significant service. • Time management and selective collaborations improve productivity in midcareer. • Improved communication and visibility during midcareer may extend influence. • Embracing lifelong learning and expecting the unexpected help maintain productivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much work by criminology and criminal justice scholars assesses and ranks doctoral programs and faculty based on productivity measured as number of articles, journal prestige, and grantspersonship. These state-of-the-field publications provide important information about the subset of Ph.D. programs and their faculty. Less attention is paid in these discussions to productivity among faculty at master's degree granting programs; omitting a considerable bulk of scholars. Using self-report survey data from 34 residential criminal justice master's degree granting programs, the present research explores productivity of faculty by examining a variety of publication outlets and grantspersonship to assess contributions to the field over a five-year period, 2014–2018. This study is a first step in understanding the strengths of master's level program faculty and their representation in the discipline. The paper concludes by outlining future considerations for research to extend the discussion on faculty productivity to scholars from a wider-range of programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Faculty productivity is essential for academic medical centers striving to achieve excellence and national recognition. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether and how academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation. Methods: We surveyed the Chairs of academic Departments of Medicine in the United States in 2012. We sent a paper-based questionnaire along with a personalized invitation letter by postal mail. For non-responders, we sent reminder letters, then called them and faxed them the questionnaire. The questionnaire included 8 questions with 23 tabulated close-ended items about the types of productivity measured (clinical, research, teaching, administrative) and the measurement strategies used. We conducted descriptive analyses. Results: Chairs of 78 of 152 eligible departments responded to the survey (51% response rate). Overall, 82% of respondents reported measuring at least one type of faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation. Amongst those measuring faculty productivity, types measured were: clinical (98%), research (61%), teaching (62%), and administrative (64%). Percentages of respondents who reported the use of standardized measurements units (e.g., Relative Value Units (RVUs)) varied from 17% for administrative productivity to 95% for research productivity. Departments reported a wide variation of what exact activities are measured and how they are monetarily compensated. Most compensation plans take into account academic rank (77%). The majority of compensation plans are in the form of a bonus on top of a fixed salary (66%) and/or an adjustment of salary based on previous period productivity (55%). Conclusion: Our survey suggests that most academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity and convert it into standardized units for the purpose of salary compensation. The exact activities that are measured and how they are monetarily compensated varied substantially across departments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACTThe University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine established the Pittman Scholars Program in 2015 to elevate scientific impact and to support the recruitment and retention of highly competitive junior faculty. The authors examined the impact of this program on research productivity and on faculty retention. The authors evaluated publications and extramural grant awards and available demographic data for the Pittman Scholars compared to all junior faculty in the Heersink School of Medicine. From 2015 to 2021, the program awarded a diverse group of 41 junior faculty members across the institution. For this cohort, ninety-four new extramural grants were awarded and 146 grant applications were submitted since the inception of the scholar award. Pittman Scholars published a total of 411 papers during the term of the award. The faculty retention rate of the scholars was 95%, comparable to that of all Heersink junior faculty, with 2 recipients being recruited to other institutions. The implementation of the Pittman Scholars Program has been an effective strategy to celebrate scientific impact and acknowledge junior faculty members as outstanding scientists at our institution. The Pittman Scholars award allows junior faculty to use funds for their research program, publications, collaborations, and career advancement. The Pittman Scholars are recognized at local, regional, and national levels for the work they are contributing to academic medicine. The program has served as an important pipeline faculty development program and an avenue for individual recognition for research-intensive faculty.

This manuscript documents the research productivity over a 10-year period (2007–2016) of marketing faculty at 30 leading marketing departments. We find that median productivity in the top four marketing journals was 0.40 publications per year. We find no meaningful difference in productivity between "quant" and "behavioral" faculty. Furthermore, we find a slow decrease in productivity as faculty's "academic age" increases, but we also find that the most productive members of our community are among the colleagues who received their PhDs 20 to 30 years ago and that academic age is not a good predictor when recent productivity is taken into account. In addition, we find that the departments differ strongly in terms of the concentration of publications among faculty, as measured by the Gini coefficient. Finally, and to our surprise, we find that the number of publications in top journals by the faculty at these 30 schools dropped quite precipitously from the 2007–2011 to the 2012–2016 period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A partial answer is provided to the question "what are the most research productive business school Operations Management departments?" Among the many research rankings published, this research question appears to be unique. Other efforts in Operations Management rank either business schools or entire universities. Our criterion for ordering departments is also unique: publications only by faculty currently employed by the department. Other rankings do not consider the number or title of faculty, thereby providing an advantage to larger and more experienced faculty. This ranking is adjusted for both number of faculty and years of experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay provides descriptive evidence on the state of under-represented minority (URM) Ph.D. faculty in the accounting academy. Despite the significant growth in URM faculty in the last 26 years, the proportion of URM faculty remains extremely low (below 5 percent). Over 60 percent of URM accounting faculty earn their Ph.D.s at research-intensive institutions, but their employment rate at these institutions, and top-ranked universities, and M.B.A. programs remains low. Although URM faculty are largely excluded from leadership roles in accounting journals, their contributions to research are on par with productivity metrics for all accounting faculty. This essay, the first report of its kind on the state of race in the academy, briefly reviews the relevant existing literature and offers suggestions for future research. This essay also includes recommendations for improving the recruiting and retention of URM faculty and transparency in the publication process aimed at achieving greater inclusiveness in the academy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research self-efficacy is important to measure among faculty, given its relationship with scholarly productivity. However, very few measures exist to assess research self-efficacy among faculty, and few of those have evidence of validity. Thus, the Faculty Research Self-Efficacy Scale (FaRSES) was developed, with initial validation occurring among a nationwide sample of social and behavioral science faculty. A second order factor model emerged, where dimensions on the first factor included both (a) General Research Process and Quantitative Research and (b) Qualitative Research. Both first order factors loaded on one general second order factor. Scores on the first and second order FaRSES had strong evidence of reliability and validity. Suggestions for future research are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantifying faculty productivity has been of interest since the creation of the Journal Impact Factor. With the electronic age, copious documents can be analyzed to calculate the h-index, which assesses the productivity and impact of the citation. Changing generational characteristics have increased the use of third-party websites and their emerging role in disseminating research justify this pilot study examining the application of altmetrics along with h-index scores to assess Hospitality Management faculty productivity. Findings corroborated the positive correlation between h-index and program recognition and altmetric score. A range of penetration rates regarding altmetric events among hospitality management faculty was found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers how graduate educators can best prepare their students for writing and publishing academic scholarship, drawing on interviews performed by the coauthors with twenty published scholars from rhetoric and composition. The article also includes specific, practical strategies for academic publishing drawn from the interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Universities are under pressure to increase external research funding, and some federal agencies offer programs to expand research capacity in certain kinds of institutions. However, conflicts within faculty roles and other aspects of university operations influence the effectiveness of particular strategies for increasing research activity. We review conventional approaches to increasing research, focusing on outcomes for individual faculty members and use one federally-funded effort to build cancer-related research capacity at a public university as an example to explore the impact of various strategies on research outcomes. We close with hypotheses that should be tested in future formal studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic careers and institutional reputations are closely linked with the ability to secure funding and publish work. In today's competitive environment, it is essential for research to be clearly communicated. In our experience, many researchers need assistance with communication skills, and institutions that offer professional services in grant, manuscript and project management have an advantage in the development of their faculty and trainees. A review of the literature shows that some institutions offer centralized proposal development resources and personnel to assist with grant writing, some institutions offer workshops and lectures designed to improve researchers' writing skills for grants and/or manuscripts, and fewer institutions offer departments focused specifically on editing manuscripts. In the fall of 2009, the University of Kentucky's (UK) Markey Cancer Center (MCC) developed an infrastructure, the Research Communications Office (RCO), to enhance faculty productivity. The RCO exists to provide: expertise in scientific editing of manuscripts for academic publishing; editing and management of research, training, and career development grants; project management for multi-component and institutionally complex grants; facilitation and tracking of all MCC pilot funding mechanisms; tracking all research outcomes; preparation of graphics for presentations, posters, publications and grants; marketing and design expertise for outreach endeavors; the planning and execution of internal and external communications; and MCC web content creation and maintenance. A successful and valued service for MCC, the RCO has totaled more than 1,400 projects over six years, growing from 189 projects when tracking began in 2010 to 294 in 2015. This article will discuss why and how the RCO was created at the MCC, and in doing so, provide a framework for how the RCO model can be successfully implemented at other institutions interested in offering professional editing and management of grants and manuscripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]