Valuation of Scholarly Activities for Physical Therapy Faculty

Purpose/Hypothesis: Physical therapy (PT) faculty are required to participate in scholarly endeavors. Scholarly productivity is frequently evaluated based on quantity of production.1-3 This approach fails to account for quality (e.g. authorship order, presentation audience, or funding). Study aims: 1) compare PT program scholarly productivity valuations between programs of varying Carnegie Classification, 2) establish a scholarly activity measure which accounts for quality, and 3) provide an applied example of the new measure. Number of Subjects: PT Program Directors from CAPTE institutions (n=226) were surveyed using Dillman’s protocol.4 Materials/Methods: Respondents were asked to value (0 – 20) 30 scholarly activities (e.g., grants, publications, presentations, patents). A peer reviewed publication was the benchmark (score of 10) to which all options were compared. Nine additional questions asked about bonus value (0-100%) for impact factor, authorship order, role on a grant, and grant competitiveness. The mean for each component was the value that component contributed to the Scholar Score. Comparisons were performed via ANOVA models. Results: We received 59 responses (response rate 26%) from Professors (n=28), Associate Profs (n=28), and Assistant Profs (n=3) from institutions of Carnegie Classifications: Doctoral (n=26), Masters (n=22), and Special Focus (n=11). Significant effects of classification were observed for two of the bonus items: Last Author (p=.015) and Role as Co- PI/PI on a Grant (p=.03). Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni correction indicated Last Author and Grant Role assigned bonuses were less for Masters programs than for Doctoral programs [(M=25.9, SD=28.7 vs. M=53.5, SD=34.4, p=.02) and (M=49.0, SD=32.5 vs. M=77.3, SD=36.7, p=.03), respectively]. No other pairwise comparisons were significant. Responses were used to develop a Scholar Score based on perceived quality. Scholarly achievements from curriculum vitaes of two early-career PT faculty demonstrates the application of this new measure. While the numerical count of their scholarly products was identical, Scholar Scores differed by \u3e70%. Conclusions: The Scholar Score was developed from PT Program Director input. Directors from different Carnegie Classified institutions reported similar values for most components. This indicates the Scholar Score may be generalizable to PT faculty across all Carnegie Classifications. Our application example demonstrates how quantity and quality-based descriptions differ. Clinical Relevance : Scholarly activity plays an integral role in the career advancement of the PT faculty. A Scholar Score offers a clear and uniform, peer validated approach to the valuation of scholarly activities for PT educators. KEYWORDS: faculty development, research, early career. References Kaufman RR. Career factors help predict productivity in scholarship among faculty members in physical therapist education programs. Phys Ther. 03;89(3):204-216. Hinman MR, Brown T. Changing profile of the physical therapy professoriate--are we meeting CAPTE\u27s expectations? J Phys Ther Educ. 2017;31(4):95-104. Emerick, T., et al. (2013). Scholarly activity points: a new tool to evaluate resident scholarly productivity. British Journal Of Anaesthesia 111(3): 468-476. Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2000. Tscharntke T. Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS biology. 01;5(1):e18. Richter RR. Journal publication productivity in academic physical therapy programs in the United States and Puerto Rico from 1998 to 2002. Phys Ther. 03;88(3):376-386

An Assessment of the Academic Impact of Shock Society Members

Professional society membership enhances career development and productivity by offering opportunities for networking and learning about recent advances in the field. The quality and contribution of such societies can be measured in part through the academic productivity, career status, and funding success rates of their members. Here, using Scopus, NIH RePORTER, and departmental websites, we compare characteristics of the Shock Society membership to those of the top 55 NIH-funded American university and hospital-based departments of surgery. Shock Society members' mean number of publications, citations and H-indices were all significantly higher than those of non-members in surgery departments (P < 0.001). A higher percentage of members also have received funding from the NIH (42.5% vs. 18.5%, P < 0.001). Regression analysis indicated that members were more likely to have NIH funding compared with non-members (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.12-1.916). Trauma surgeons belonging to the Shock Society had a higher number of publications and greater NIH funding than those who did not (130.4 vs. 42.7, P < 0.001; 40.4% vs. 8.5%, P < 0.001). Aggregate academic metrics from the Shock Society were superior to those of the Association for Academic Surgery and generally for the Society of University Surgeons as well. These data indicate that the Shock Society represents a highly academic and productive group of investigators. For surgery faculty, membership is associated with greater academic productivity and career advancement. While it is difficult to ascribe causation, certainly the Shock Society might positively influence careers for its members

Examining the Personal and Institutional Determinants of Research Productivity in Hospitality and Tourism Management

The transition toward a post-capitalist knowledge-oriented economy has resulted in an increasingly competitive academic environment, where the success of faculty is dependent on their research productivity. This study examines the personal and institutional determinants of the quantity and quality of the research productivity of hospitality and tourism management faculty in US institutions. A survey of 98 faculty found that a different set of determinants impact the quantity and quality aspects of research productivity. Also, institutional determinants were found to play a larger role, indicating the need for administrators to strive for a culture that is supportive of and an infrastructure that is conducive to their faculty’s research success. The authors use the field of hospitality and tourism management as a case study to develop a holistic and cohesive framework for knowledge worker productivity that can guide the evaluation, hiring, and development of researchers

University Innovation and the Professor’s Privilige

Publisher PD

Incentives and Invention in Universities

We show that economic incentives affect the commercial value of inventions generated in universities. Using data for 102 U.S. universities during the period 1991-1999, we find that universities which give higher royalty shares to academic scientists generate higher license income, controlling for other factors including university size, quality, research funding and technology licensing inputs. We provide evidence that this is due to the fact that public universities are less effective at commercialising inventions, which weakens the incentive effect of higher royalty shares. Other findings include: 1) there is a Laffer effect in private universities: raising the inventor's royalty share increases the license income retained by the university; 2) the incentive effect works primarily by increasing the quality of inventions, and 3) the incentive effect appears to operate both by raising faculty effort and by sorting academic scientists across universities.Academic research, incentives, licensing, royalties, technology transfer, intellectual property.

Incentives and Invention in Universities

We show that economic incentives affect the number and commercial value of inventions generated in universities. Using panel data for 102 U.S. universities during the period 1991-1999, we find that universities which give higher royalty shares to academic scientists generate more inventions and higher license income, controlling for other factors including university size, quality, research funding and technology licensing inputs. The incentive effects are much larger in private universities than in public ones. For private institutions there is a Laffer curve effect: raising the inventor's royalty share increases the license income retained by the university. The incentive effect appears to work both through the level of effort and sorting of academic scientists.

The great divide in scientific productivity. Why the average scientist does not exist.

We use a quantile regression approach to estimate the e¤ects of age, gender, research funding, teaching load and other observed characteristics of academic researchers on the full distribution of research performance, both in its quantity (publications) and quality (citations) dimension. Exploiting the panel nature of our dataset, we estimate a correlated random-e¤ects quantile regression model, accounting for unobserved heterogeneity of researchers. We employ recent advances in quantile regression that allow its application to count data. Estimation of the model for a panel of biomedical and exact scientists at the KU Leuven in the period 1992-2001 shows strong support for our quantile regression approach, revealing the di¤erential impact of almost all regressors along the distribution. We also …nd that variables like funding, teaching load and cohort have a di¤erent impact on research quantity than on research quality.economics of science; research productivity; quantile regression; count data; random effects;