Commentary

Evaluating faculty productivity in research: An interesting approach, but questions remain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Academic institutions must have strategies for evaluating research productivity by faculty. Such strategies are useful in guiding resource allocations for the research enterprise, for decisions on faculty promotions, and for broader institutional planning, including program development. Commonly, decisions about research space utilization, and funding to support the space, are considered within the purview of the institutional administration. Peer review, in manuscript and grant submissions and the promotions process, is more commonly used to evaluate the impact of faculty research. The article by Iyengar et al in this issue of Academic Medicine takes an interesting approach to evaluate research productivity of individual faculty by integrating benchmarks for research funding and publication impact. The strategy of using these benchmarks to partition faculty into quadrants to guide faculty development activities is clever and useful. Less clear are the philosophy and long-term utility of the approach. The applicability to the stated goal of promoting multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary translational research is not obvious, nor is it apparent that faculty will continue to view decisions as transparent and fair over the longer term. Nevertheless, the author's article is a welcome contribution at a time when many institutions are struggling with issues of evaluating faculty investigators and allocating resources for research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1482-1484
Number of pages3
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume84
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2009

Fingerprint

productivity
Research
Benchmarking
space utilization
promotion
funding
Peer Review
Program Development
program planning
Translational Medical Research
Resource Allocation
Manuscripts
Organized Financing
interdisciplinary research
peer review
resources
grant
Publications
Research Personnel
Medicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

Commentary : Evaluating faculty productivity in research: An interesting approach, but questions remain. / Joiner, Keith A.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 84, No. 11, 11.2009, p. 1482-1484.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a78f07ab6c38444a8c36b6f40fc1299a,
title = "Commentary: Evaluating faculty productivity in research: An interesting approach, but questions remain",
abstract = "Academic institutions must have strategies for evaluating research productivity by faculty. Such strategies are useful in guiding resource allocations for the research enterprise, for decisions on faculty promotions, and for broader institutional planning, including program development. Commonly, decisions about research space utilization, and funding to support the space, are considered within the purview of the institutional administration. Peer review, in manuscript and grant submissions and the promotions process, is more commonly used to evaluate the impact of faculty research. The article by Iyengar et al in this issue of Academic Medicine takes an interesting approach to evaluate research productivity of individual faculty by integrating benchmarks for research funding and publication impact. The strategy of using these benchmarks to partition faculty into quadrants to guide faculty development activities is clever and useful. Less clear are the philosophy and long-term utility of the approach. The applicability to the stated goal of promoting multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary translational research is not obvious, nor is it apparent that faculty will continue to view decisions as transparent and fair over the longer term. Nevertheless, the author's article is a welcome contribution at a time when many institutions are struggling with issues of evaluating faculty investigators and allocating resources for research.",
author = "Joiner, {Keith A}",
year = "2009",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181bb28a8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "84",
pages = "1482--1484",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Commentary

T2 - Evaluating faculty productivity in research: An interesting approach, but questions remain

AU - Joiner, Keith A

PY - 2009/11

Y1 - 2009/11

N2 - Academic institutions must have strategies for evaluating research productivity by faculty. Such strategies are useful in guiding resource allocations for the research enterprise, for decisions on faculty promotions, and for broader institutional planning, including program development. Commonly, decisions about research space utilization, and funding to support the space, are considered within the purview of the institutional administration. Peer review, in manuscript and grant submissions and the promotions process, is more commonly used to evaluate the impact of faculty research. The article by Iyengar et al in this issue of Academic Medicine takes an interesting approach to evaluate research productivity of individual faculty by integrating benchmarks for research funding and publication impact. The strategy of using these benchmarks to partition faculty into quadrants to guide faculty development activities is clever and useful. Less clear are the philosophy and long-term utility of the approach. The applicability to the stated goal of promoting multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary translational research is not obvious, nor is it apparent that faculty will continue to view decisions as transparent and fair over the longer term. Nevertheless, the author's article is a welcome contribution at a time when many institutions are struggling with issues of evaluating faculty investigators and allocating resources for research.

AB - Academic institutions must have strategies for evaluating research productivity by faculty. Such strategies are useful in guiding resource allocations for the research enterprise, for decisions on faculty promotions, and for broader institutional planning, including program development. Commonly, decisions about research space utilization, and funding to support the space, are considered within the purview of the institutional administration. Peer review, in manuscript and grant submissions and the promotions process, is more commonly used to evaluate the impact of faculty research. The article by Iyengar et al in this issue of Academic Medicine takes an interesting approach to evaluate research productivity of individual faculty by integrating benchmarks for research funding and publication impact. The strategy of using these benchmarks to partition faculty into quadrants to guide faculty development activities is clever and useful. Less clear are the philosophy and long-term utility of the approach. The applicability to the stated goal of promoting multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary translational research is not obvious, nor is it apparent that faculty will continue to view decisions as transparent and fair over the longer term. Nevertheless, the author's article is a welcome contribution at a time when many institutions are struggling with issues of evaluating faculty investigators and allocating resources for research.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70449379847&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70449379847&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181bb28a8

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181bb28a8

M3 - Article

VL - 84

SP - 1482

EP - 1484

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 11

ER -