Promotion from Associate Professor to Full Professor Should Not Be Monolithic: A National Bibliometric Study by Radiology Subspecialty

IF 4.7 2区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Academic Radiology Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-27 DOI:10.1016/j.acra.2026.06.004

Dhairya A. Lakhani M.D., Mahla Radmard MD, David M. Yousem MD, MBA

{"title":"Promotion from Associate Professor to Full Professor Should Not Be Monolithic: A National Bibliometric Study by Radiology Subspecialty","authors":"Dhairya A. Lakhani M.D., Mahla Radmard MD, David M. Yousem MD, MBA","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2026.06.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Academic promotion from associate professor (AP) to full professor (FP) in radiology relies heavily on bibliometrics, yet no subspecialty-specific benchmarks exist to guide promotion committees or faculty career planning. Applying uniform productivity standards across diverse subspecialties may disadvantage faculty in certain fields and fail to account for legitimate variations in research output. Hence, we aim to establish subspecialty-specific bibliometric benchmarks for promotion readiness from AP to FP in academic radiology and quantify the promotion gap across subspecialties.</div></div><div>Academic promotion from associate professor (AP) to full professor (FP) in radiology relies heavily on bibliometrics, yet no subspecialty-specific benchmarks exist to guide promotion committees or faculty career planning. Applying uniform productivity standards across diverse subspecialties may disadvantage faculty in certain fields and fail to account for legitimate variations in research output. Hence, we aim to establish subspecialty-specific bibliometric benchmarks for promotion readiness from AP to FP in academic radiology and quantify the promotion gap across subspecialties.</div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We analyzed 1931 APs and 1759 FPs across nine radiology subspecialties at 136 US institutions between September 2025 and January 2026. Bibliometric data (publications, citations, h-index, first/last author publications) were obtained from Scopus. Upper-tier AP percentiles (60th-90th) defined \"promotion readiness\" benchmarks, while lower-tier FP percentiles (10th-40th) represented \"entry thresholds.\" The promotion gap was quantified by comparing percentile distributions and calculating median bibliometric differences between ranks.</div></div><div>We analyzed 1931 APs and 1759 FPs across nine radiology subspecialties at 136 US institutions between September 2025 and January 2026. Bibliometric data (publications, citations, h-index, first/last author publications) were obtained from Scopus. Upper-tier AP percentiles (60th-90th) defined \"promotion readiness\" benchmarks, while lower-tier FP percentiles (10th-40th) represented \"entry thresholds.\" The promotion gap was quantified by comparing percentile distributions and calculating median bibliometric differences between ranks.</div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Promotion readiness at the 80th percentile varied 4.2-fold for publications [154 (Neurointerventional) vs. 37 (Breast)], 4.5-fold for citations [3598 (Nuclear Medicine) vs. 799 (Musculoskeletal)], and 2.2-fold for h-index [31 (Neurointerventional) vs. 14 (Breast)] across subspecialties. An AP at the 80th percentile in Pediatric Radiology would rank at the 49th percentile among FPs (smallest gap), while one in Musculoskeletal Radiology would rank at the 29th percentile (largest gap)—a 21-percentile-point difference. The AP 80th percentile exceeded the FP 20th percentile for every subspecialty. Achieving median FP bibliometric levels would require APs to publish 2.67 (Breast Imaging) to 9.14 (Neurointerventional) additional papers annually, including one first/last-authored publication.</div></div><div>Promotion readiness at the 80th percentile varied 4.2-fold for publications [154 (Neurointerventional) vs. 37 (Breast)], 4.5-fold for citations [3598 (Nuclear Medicine) vs. 799 (Musculoskeletal)], and 2.2-fold for h-index [31 (Neurointerventional) vs. 14 (Breast)] across subspecialties. An AP at the 80th percentile in Pediatric Radiology would rank at the 49th percentile among FPs (smallest gap), while one in Musculoskeletal Radiology would rank at the 29th percentile (largest gap)—a 21-percentile-point difference. The AP 80th percentile exceeded the FP 20th percentile for every subspecialty. Achieving median FP bibliometric levels would require APs to publish 2.67 (Breast Imaging) to 9.14 (Neurointerventional) additional papers annually, including one first/last-authored publication.</div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Substantial variation exists in bibliometric profiles across radiology subspecialties, with notable differences in observed promotion gaps by subspecialty. These subspecialty-specific observed benchmarks can inform promotion committees and guide faculty career planning.</div></div><div>Substantial variation exists in bibliometric profiles across radiology subspecialties, with notable differences in observed promotion gaps by subspecialty. These subspecialty-specific observed benchmarks can inform promotion committees and guide faculty career planning.</div>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":"33 10","pages":"Pages 4207-4217"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1076633226004162","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Academic promotion from associate professor (AP) to full professor (FP) in radiology relies heavily on bibliometrics, yet no subspecialty-specific benchmarks exist to guide promotion committees or faculty career planning. Applying uniform productivity standards across diverse subspecialties may disadvantage faculty in certain fields and fail to account for legitimate variations in research output. Hence, we aim to establish subspecialty-specific bibliometric benchmarks for promotion readiness from AP to FP in academic radiology and quantify the promotion gap across subspecialties.

Methods

We analyzed 1931 APs and 1759 FPs across nine radiology subspecialties at 136 US institutions between September 2025 and January 2026. Bibliometric data (publications, citations, h-index, first/last author publications) were obtained from Scopus. Upper-tier AP percentiles (60th-90th) defined "promotion readiness" benchmarks, while lower-tier FP percentiles (10th-40th) represented "entry thresholds." The promotion gap was quantified by comparing percentile distributions and calculating median bibliometric differences between ranks.

Results

Promotion readiness at the 80th percentile varied 4.2-fold for publications [154 (Neurointerventional) vs. 37 (Breast)], 4.5-fold for citations [3598 (Nuclear Medicine) vs. 799 (Musculoskeletal)], and 2.2-fold for h-index [31 (Neurointerventional) vs. 14 (Breast)] across subspecialties. An AP at the 80th percentile in Pediatric Radiology would rank at the 49th percentile among FPs (smallest gap), while one in Musculoskeletal Radiology would rank at the 29th percentile (largest gap)—a 21-percentile-point difference. The AP 80th percentile exceeded the FP 20th percentile for every subspecialty. Achieving median FP bibliometric levels would require APs to publish 2.67 (Breast Imaging) to 9.14 (Neurointerventional) additional papers annually, including one first/last-authored publication.

Conclusion

Substantial variation exists in bibliometric profiles across radiology subspecialties, with notable differences in observed promotion gaps by subspecialty. These subspecialty-specific observed benchmarks can inform promotion committees and guide faculty career planning.

查看原文本刊更多论文

副教授到正教授的晋升不应该是单一的：放射学亚专业的国家文献计量学研究。

背景：放射学从副教授（AP）到正教授（FP）的学术晋升很大程度上依赖于文献计量学，但没有针对亚专业的基准来指导晋升委员会或教师的职业规划。在不同的子专业中采用统一的生产力标准可能会使某些领域的教师处于不利地位，并且无法解释研究产出的合理变化。因此，我们的目标是为学术放射学从AP到FP的晋升准备建立亚专业特定的文献计量基准，并量化亚专业之间的晋升差距。方法：我们分析了2025年9月至2026年1月期间136家美国机构9个放射学亚专科的1931例ap和1759例FPs。文献计量数据（出版物、引文、h-index、第一/最后作者出版物）来自Scopus。高级AP百分位数（第60 -90位）定义了“晋升准备”基准，而低级FP百分位数（第10 -40位）代表了“进入门槛”。通过比较百分位数分布和计算各职级间文献计量学差异的中位数来量化晋升差距。结果：不同亚专科的出版物在第80百分位的推广准备度差异为4.2倍[154篇（神经介入）对37篇（乳腺）]，引文差异为4.5倍[3598篇（核医学）对799篇（肌肉骨骼）]，h指数差异为2.2倍[31篇（神经介入）对14篇（乳腺）]。儿科放射学80百分位的AP在FPs中排名第49百分位（差距最小），而肌肉骨骼放射学的AP排名第29百分位（差距最大），差异为21个百分位。每个亚专科的AP第80百分位数都超过FP第20百分位数。要达到FP文献计量学水平的中位数，需要ap每年额外发表2.67篇（乳腺成像）至9.14篇（神经介入）论文，包括一篇第一/最后作者发表的论文。结论：不同放射学亚专科的文献计量资料存在显著差异，不同亚专科的晋升差距存在显著差异。这些观察到的亚专业基准可以为晋升委员会提供信息，并指导教师的职业规划。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Academic Radiology 医学-核医学

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

10.40%

发文量

432

审稿时长

18 days

期刊介绍： Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.