Snider Allen, Hight Kacey, Brunson Allison, Payakachat Nalin, Franks Amy M
University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, Kansas.
Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Am J Pharm Educ. 2021 Mar;85(3):7983. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7983. Epub 2020 Dec 4.
To describe criteria for evaluating faculty scholarship within the promotion and tenure guidance documents of US schools and colleges of pharmacy. Promotion and tenure documents were obtained from the websites of US pharmacy schools or requested via electronic mail, and institutional characteristics were collected from publicly available online data. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to systematically catalogue document characteristics and criteria for promotion and tenure. Promotion and tenure guidance documents from 121 (85%) of 142 pharmacy schools were analyzed. Institutions were 55% public and equally distributed across Carnegie institutional classifications as well as geographic and extramural funding stratifications. Publications (94%) and grants and contracts (87%) were the most frequently included criteria for faculty advancement. More than 50% of schools recognized the criteria within promotion and tenure guidance documents but did not explicitly require faculty to achieve them before receiving promotion and/or tenure. For institutions that required publications for advancement, the most frequently required criterion was publication in peer-reviewed journals (47%). Few schools (22%) documented a specific number of required publications. This analysis provides a comprehensive review of scholarship criteria in academic pharmacy promotion and tenure guidance documents. There was wide variability among scholarship criteria, and documents often lacked specific language defining scholarship requirements As a result, faculty may find the documents less helpful for self-assessment and preparation toward promotion and/or tenure. These benchmark data can assist pharmacy faculty and administrators in developing and revising promotion and tenure guidance documents to include clear criteria and better align with peer institutions.
描述美国药学院校晋升与终身教职指导文件中评估教师学术成果的标准。从美国药学院校网站获取晋升与终身教职文件,或通过电子邮件索取,并从公开的在线数据中收集院校特征。进行定性内容分析,以系统梳理文件特征以及晋升与终身教职的标准。对142所药学院校中的121所(85%)的晋升与终身教职指导文件进行了分析。院校中有55%为公立院校,在卡内基院校分类以及地理和校外资金分层中分布均衡。出版物(94%)和资助与合同(87%)是教师晋升最常包含的标准。超过50%的学校认可晋升与终身教职指导文件中的标准,但未明确要求教师在获得晋升和/或终身教职之前达到这些标准。对于要求以出版物作为晋升条件的院校,最常要求的标准是在同行评审期刊上发表文章(47%)。很少有学校(22%)记录了所需出版物的具体数量。本分析全面审视了学术药学晋升与终身教职指导文件中的学术成果标准。学术成果标准差异很大,文件往往缺乏明确界定学术成果要求的具体表述。因此,教师可能会发现这些文件对自我评估以及晋升和/或终身教职准备的帮助不大。这些基准数据可协助药学院教师和管理人员制定和修订晋升与终身教职指导文件,以纳入明确标准并更好地与同行院校保持一致。