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 authors' article is a welcome contribution at a time when many institutions are struggling with issues of evaluating faculty investigators and allocating resources for research.

Research incentive program for clinical surgical faculty associated with increases in research productivity

“…Although all bibliometric concepts have disadvantages, citation number could well be regarded as the most valid and readily accessible quality measure available. 15 The program could also provide data to identify where resources would be best allocated to improve scholarly productivity throughout the department. Improvements in resource management could serve to incentivize faculty not producing the expected amount or quality of research, thereby elevating the productivity of the whole department and directing faculty development efforts.…”

NIH Funding Ranked “Per Capita”: An Alternative Method for Assessing Research Productivity

“…Some studies examined h-indices combined with NIH rankings and/or other metrics (e.g., rankings in respected, widely read magazines; Hendrix, 2008;Sypsa & Hatzakis, 2009;Turaga & Gamblin, 2012), whereas, others presented modifications or alternatives to the h-index (Iyengar, Wang, Chow, & Charney, 2009;Mezrich & Nagy, 2007;Wootton, 2013). The philosophy and long-term utility of such approaches has been questioned (Joiner, 2009). Although other metrics such as publications, awards, and presentations can be examined to assess research productivity, NIH funding rankings by total dollars secured are publicly available, easy to understand, and frequently advertised by research-intensive institutions.…”