{"title":"医学物理学家的晋升和终身职位应基于文章的具体衡量标准,而不是期刊影响因子。","authors":"Samantha Hedrick, Jinzhong Yang, Yi Rong","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the evolving progress of academic medicine, the metrics by which we measure success are both crucial and contentious. Among these, the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has long been a dominant metric, often serving as a shorthand for the quality and significance of research. For many institutions, JIF plays a pivotal role in decisions regarding promotion, tenure, and funding, positioning it as a key indicator of academic achievement. However, as we delve deeper into the complexities of scholarly impact, questions arise: Is the JIF truly a fair measure of quality of an individual author or value of their article? Or should we, instead, focus on article-specific metrics that more accurately reflect the true impact of the work? This month's debate seeks to explore these questions from both perspectives. We have Dr. Samantha Hedrick, who argues in favor of article-specific measures as a more accurate reflection of scholarly contribution, while Dr. Jinzhong Yang defends the established role of the JIF as a useful, if imperfect, tool in academic evaluation.</p><p>Samantha Hedrick, PhD, DABR received her B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla and received her M.S. and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Missouri. She then completed a two-year CAMPEP accredited residency at Washington University in St. Louis. She is currently the Director of Medical Physics at the Thompson Proton Center, specializing in pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatment planning, scripting, and safety improvements.</p><p>Jinzhong Yang, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radiation Physics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. He is the lead physicist of the MR-Linac program at MD Anderson. He earned his PhD in Electrical Engineering from Lehigh University in 2006 and received a postdoctoral training at University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on artificial intelligence in medical image computing for radiation oncology applications, MR-guided online adaptive radiotherapy, and quantitative imaging biomarkers for treatment outcome prediction. He has published over 130 peer-reviewed journal articles, nine book chapters, and edited a book.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"25 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11633813/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Promotion and tenure for medical physicists should be based on article specific measures and not on journal impact factor\",\"authors\":\"Samantha Hedrick, Jinzhong Yang, Yi Rong\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.14537\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In the evolving progress of academic medicine, the metrics by which we measure success are both crucial and contentious. Among these, the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has long been a dominant metric, often serving as a shorthand for the quality and significance of research. For many institutions, JIF plays a pivotal role in decisions regarding promotion, tenure, and funding, positioning it as a key indicator of academic achievement. However, as we delve deeper into the complexities of scholarly impact, questions arise: Is the JIF truly a fair measure of quality of an individual author or value of their article? Or should we, instead, focus on article-specific metrics that more accurately reflect the true impact of the work? This month's debate seeks to explore these questions from both perspectives. We have Dr. Samantha Hedrick, who argues in favor of article-specific measures as a more accurate reflection of scholarly contribution, while Dr. Jinzhong Yang defends the established role of the JIF as a useful, if imperfect, tool in academic evaluation.</p><p>Samantha Hedrick, PhD, DABR received her B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla and received her M.S. and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Missouri. She then completed a two-year CAMPEP accredited residency at Washington University in St. Louis. She is currently the Director of Medical Physics at the Thompson Proton Center, specializing in pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatment planning, scripting, and safety improvements.</p><p>Jinzhong Yang, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radiation Physics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. He is the lead physicist of the MR-Linac program at MD Anderson. He earned his PhD in Electrical Engineering from Lehigh University in 2006 and received a postdoctoral training at University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on artificial intelligence in medical image computing for radiation oncology applications, MR-guided online adaptive radiotherapy, and quantitative imaging biomarkers for treatment outcome prediction. He has published over 130 peer-reviewed journal articles, nine book chapters, and edited a book.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"25 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11633813/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.14537\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.14537","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Promotion and tenure for medical physicists should be based on article specific measures and not on journal impact factor
In the evolving progress of academic medicine, the metrics by which we measure success are both crucial and contentious. Among these, the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has long been a dominant metric, often serving as a shorthand for the quality and significance of research. For many institutions, JIF plays a pivotal role in decisions regarding promotion, tenure, and funding, positioning it as a key indicator of academic achievement. However, as we delve deeper into the complexities of scholarly impact, questions arise: Is the JIF truly a fair measure of quality of an individual author or value of their article? Or should we, instead, focus on article-specific metrics that more accurately reflect the true impact of the work? This month's debate seeks to explore these questions from both perspectives. We have Dr. Samantha Hedrick, who argues in favor of article-specific measures as a more accurate reflection of scholarly contribution, while Dr. Jinzhong Yang defends the established role of the JIF as a useful, if imperfect, tool in academic evaluation.
Samantha Hedrick, PhD, DABR received her B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla and received her M.S. and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Missouri. She then completed a two-year CAMPEP accredited residency at Washington University in St. Louis. She is currently the Director of Medical Physics at the Thompson Proton Center, specializing in pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatment planning, scripting, and safety improvements.
Jinzhong Yang, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radiation Physics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. He is the lead physicist of the MR-Linac program at MD Anderson. He earned his PhD in Electrical Engineering from Lehigh University in 2006 and received a postdoctoral training at University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on artificial intelligence in medical image computing for radiation oncology applications, MR-guided online adaptive radiotherapy, and quantitative imaging biomarkers for treatment outcome prediction. He has published over 130 peer-reviewed journal articles, nine book chapters, and edited a book.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic