For Residents
![](https://cdn-uat.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/styles/max_width_small/public/images/article_teasers/CU_Martires_Carousel.jpg)
Factors Affecting Academic Leadership in Dermatology
Although prior studies have examined methods by which to recruit and retain academic dermatologists, few have examined factors that are important...
Drs. A.M John, Lopez, Lee, and Lambert, as well as Mr. Gupta, are from the Department of Dermatology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark. Dr. E.S. John is from the Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Correspondence: Ann M. John, MD, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Medical Science Bldg, H-576, 185 South Orange Ave, Newark, NJ 07103 (ann.m.john@gmail.com).
A greater amount of clinical responsibility also may influence the difference in measures of scholarly productivity within each subspecialty. For instance, there is a known shortage of pediatric dermatologists,32 which may translate as a decreased amount of time that can be dedicated to research activity because of higher clinical volume per physician. Dermatologists with no fellowship had a higher mean h-index than those with pediatric and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships, which may reflect the smaller number of subspecialists compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists (13.8% procedural dermatology/MMS; 6.8% pediatric dermatology; 52.0% no fellowship). As such, the research of subspecialists is targeted to a narrower audience and will garner fewer citations than non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, the lower number of subspecialists is not the only factor impacting scholarly productivity, as dermato-pathologists had higher scholarly impact than non–fellowship-trained individuals despite comprising only 15.5% of the cohort.
In corroboration with prior studies of academic medicine, the h-index increased with increasing rank from assistant professor to professor and chair.29,30,33 This increase confirms that research productivity is associated with academic rank. When stratifying the 2 cohorts of fellowship-trained and non–fellowship-trained academic dermatologists by academic rank, there was no significant difference in the h-index for both groups at each rank, except for associate professor. In addition, there was a relatively equal distribution within each rank of fellowship-trained and non–fellowship-trained individuals. This lack of statistical difference also was demonstrated when stratifying for years of active publication experience. Academic dermatologists have been shown to be more interested in pursuing research activity, and research is pivotal to pursuing a dermatology residency.11 Future studies may extend the comparison of scholarly productivity to nonacademic dermatologists.
It is important to acknowledge certain limitations in the data collection process and use of the h-index. Many of the dermatology department websites do not provide information about whether individual faculty members are pursuing a tenure track or nontenure track. This distinction may have bearing on the h-index, as research is more heavily emphasized in the tenure track. Moreover, the h-index does not take into account the type of research (ie, clinical vs basic science research). Therefore, while basic science research often is more time intensive than clinical research, a publication is weighed solely by its number of citations. As such, the h-index may not capture the true amount of time dedicated to research activities. In addition, the h-index cannot account for self-citation, which may increase this measure.34 However, to greatly influence the h-index, many self-citations of each work would be necessary, making it less concerning. Another limitation of this study is that it does not take into account time dedicated to the education of residents and medical students, an act that is necessary for preservation of the field. Although education portfolios that detail an individual’s contribution to teaching are starting to become more popular, there currently is no measure for educational activities.18,35 Finally, dermatology department websites are not frequently updated; as such, data gathered from websites regarding academic rank may not always be recent.
Conclusion
Scholarly productivity, as measured by the h-index, is a major contributory factor to hiring, promoting, and developing reputations in academic medicine. Our findings demonstrate that there is greater scholarly productivity among fellowship-trained dermatologists compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, when controlling for academic rank and publication range, this difference is minimized. As such, fellowships may provide more opportunity for structured research experiences but may not be necessary for successful academic careers. In addition, individuals who wish to dedicate a substantial portion of time to research may find that fellowships in dermatopathology, immunodermatology, dermatology-rheumatology, clinical education, dermatoepidemiology, cutaneous oncology, dermatopharmacology, and photobiology are more conducive to performing research. We also recommend that other activities, including clinical and teaching activities, serve as supplemental measures to scholarly productivity when evaluating a physician’s contribution.
Although prior studies have examined methods by which to recruit and retain academic dermatologists, few have examined factors that are important...
International resident opportunities in dermatology allow residents to become immersed in different systems of medical care and expose physicians...
There is a shortage of academic dermatologists in the United States. This study aimed to examine characteristics of US dermatology residency...