ArticleAmerican journal of pharmaceutical education2014
Perceptions of tenure and tenure reform in academic pharmacy.
Article in American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Research and Scholarship Criteria Within Promotion and Tenure Documents of US Pharmacy Schools.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2021Review
- Ten Tips for Pharmacy Faculty Members for Successfully Navigating Promotion and Tenure.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2021Article
- The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future.F1000Research · 2018Review
- Debating the Effectiveness and Necessity of Tenure in Pharmacy Education.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the academic pharmacy community's perceptions of and recommendations for tenure and tenure reform.
methodsA survey instrument was administered via either a live interview or an online survey instrument to selected members of the US academic pharmacy community.
resultsThe majority of respondents felt that tenure in academic pharmacy was doing what it was intended to do, which is to provide academic freedom and allow for innovation (59.6%). Respondents raised concern over the need for faculty mentoring before and after achieving tenure, whether tenure adequately recognized service, and that tenure was not the best standard for recognition and achievement. The majority (63%) agreed that tenure reform was needed in academic pharmacy, with the most prevalent recommendation being to implement post-tenure reviews. Some disparities in opinions of tenure reform were seen in the subgroup analyses of clinical science vs basic science faculty members, public vs private institutions, and administrators vs nonadministrators.
conclusionsThe majority of respondents want to see tenure reformed in academic pharmacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.