The following is a summary of “Development of a Clinical-scholar Index Score for Measuring Academic Contributions in Urology,” published in the MAY 2023 issue of Urology by Orji, et al.
For a study, researchers sought to create an academic index that enables the annual assessment of faculty non-clinical activities in an academic urology department.
They collected academic activities from faculty members’ curriculum vitae (CV) and categorized them into predetermined groups. The categories were assigned weights based on discussions with department leadership. The weights were scaled from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating activities considered non-essential to the department’s mission, had little to no external recognition, or were below the expected milestone for the individual (e.g., middle author publications for a senior career staff member). A weight of 1 was given to activities deemed essential to the department’s mission, required a significant time commitment from the individual, and provided external recognition. Annual scholarly index scores were calculated for each participant using these weights based on their weighted contributions for the year.
The analysis revealed that early career staff members primarily contributed through peer-reviewed publications and presentations. The velocity of scholarly contributions was highest during the mid-career (MC) stage. Senior career (SC) urologists exhibited the most diverse contributions compared to other groups. Similar to mid-career faculty, senior career faculty showed a decline in non-clinical productivity starting in 2018, coinciding with a shift in organizational priorities towards increased clinical productivity.
By utilizing the developed academic index, it was possible to quantify and track the non-clinical contributions of academic urologists annually. The approach facilitated leadership in identifying ways to support career development, particularly during the mid-career stage when individuals have the greatest potential for growth or stagnation. Moreover, the model can capture the impact of organizational shifts in priorities on academic contributions.