Shanna K. O’Connor , Caroline M. Sierra , Megan N. Willson , Jaime Maerten-Rivera , Cameron C. Lindsey , Catherine M. Crill , Laura M. Frankart , Rebecca Moote , Anita Mosley , Margie Padilla , Jennifer Prisco , Susan Smith
{"title":"To Stay or To Go? Debate Regarding US News and World Report Pharmacy Program Rankings","authors":"Shanna K. O’Connor , Caroline M. Sierra , Megan N. Willson , Jaime Maerten-Rivera , Cameron C. Lindsey , Catherine M. Crill , Laura M. Frankart , Rebecca Moote , Anita Mosley , Margie Padilla , Jennifer Prisco , Susan Smith","doi":"10.1016/j.ajpe.2025.101432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The methodology used to generate the US News and World Report rankings has been increasingly scrutinized by members of the Academy. The primary objective was to describe the potential positive and negative effects of the Academy ceasing participation in the US News and World Report ranking system (USNWR-RS).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>As part of the Academic Leadership Fellows Program, fellows participated in a debate on current topics in academic pharmacy. For this topic, authors partnered with health science librarians and individually searched the peer-reviewed literature and lay press for evidence related to the USNWR-RS for pharmacy. Each piece of evidence was reviewed by 2 different authors for inclusion, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. All evidence was then summarized to identify themes related to the primary objective.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirteen pieces of evidence were included in the summary: 8 (62%) were from peer-reviewed literature and the remaining were from popular media or news sources. Just over one-third of the pieces of evidence were initially structured as research studies rather than opinion-based articles.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The USNWR-RS has flaws and benefits that should be considered as the Academy works to address concerns. Established work and initial steps toward change lay an encouraging framework for the future.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55530,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education","volume":"89 8","pages":"Article 101432"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002945925000774","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
The methodology used to generate the US News and World Report rankings has been increasingly scrutinized by members of the Academy. The primary objective was to describe the potential positive and negative effects of the Academy ceasing participation in the US News and World Report ranking system (USNWR-RS).
Methods
As part of the Academic Leadership Fellows Program, fellows participated in a debate on current topics in academic pharmacy. For this topic, authors partnered with health science librarians and individually searched the peer-reviewed literature and lay press for evidence related to the USNWR-RS for pharmacy. Each piece of evidence was reviewed by 2 different authors for inclusion, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. All evidence was then summarized to identify themes related to the primary objective.
Results
Thirteen pieces of evidence were included in the summary: 8 (62%) were from peer-reviewed literature and the remaining were from popular media or news sources. Just over one-third of the pieces of evidence were initially structured as research studies rather than opinion-based articles.
Conclusion
The USNWR-RS has flaws and benefits that should be considered as the Academy works to address concerns. Established work and initial steps toward change lay an encouraging framework for the future.
期刊介绍:
The Journal accepts unsolicited manuscripts that have not been published and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The Journal only considers material related to pharmaceutical education for publication. Authors must prepare manuscripts to conform to the Journal style (Author Instructions). All manuscripts are subject to peer review and approval by the editor prior to acceptance for publication. Reviewers are assigned by the editor with the advice of the editorial board as needed. Manuscripts are submitted and processed online (Submit a Manuscript) using Editorial Manager, an online manuscript tracking system that facilitates communication between the editorial office, editor, associate editors, reviewers, and authors.
After a manuscript is accepted, it is scheduled for publication in an upcoming issue of the Journal. All manuscripts are formatted and copyedited, and returned to the author for review and approval of the changes. Approximately 2 weeks prior to publication, the author receives an electronic proof of the article for final review and approval. Authors are not assessed page charges for publication.