ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2016
Faculty Promotion and Attrition: The Importance of Coauthor Network Reach at an Academic Medical Center.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathways to promotion: Leveraging your network for academic success.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026Article
- The Social Network of Otolaryngology: Collaborative Publishing Relationships by Gender.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Composing authorship teams for health equity: an introduction to the health equity research production model.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Social network analysis as a new tool to measure academic impact of physicians.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Publishing on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Can Advance the Work.Family medicine · 2024Article
- Perceptions of the Leadership Through Scholarship Fellowship Graduates: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Leadership.Family medicine · 2024Article
- The rise of teamwork and career prospects in academic science.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
- Women of Color in the Health Professions: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Changes in self-confidence in professional, personal, and scientific skills by gender during physician-scientist training at the University of Pittsburgh.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the fields of nutrition and obesity: A road map to equity in academia.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2023Article
- Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the fields of nutrition and obesity: A roadmap to equity in academia.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Disparities in Research during Plastic Surgery Training: How Can We Level the Playing Field?Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Work-Life Balance and Productivity Among Academic Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Latent Class Analysis.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2022Article
- Clinician-Scientist Faculty Mentoring Program (FAME) - A New Inclusive Training Model at Penn State Increases Scholarly Productivity and Extramural Grant Funding.Advances in medical education and practice · 2022Article
- Bibliometric Analysis of the English Musculoskeletal Literature over the Last 30 Years.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2021Article
- Assessment of Perceptions of Professionalism Among Faculty, Trainees, Staff, and Students in a Large University-Based Health System.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Building a PubMed knowledge graph.Scientific data · 2020Article
- NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores.Science advances · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBusiness literature has demonstrated the importance of networking and connections in career advancement. This is a little-studied area in academic medicine.
objectiveTo examine predictors of intra-organizational connections, as measured by network reach (the number of first- and second-degree coauthors), and their association with probability of promotion and attrition.
designProspective cohort study between 2008 and 2012.
settingAcademic medical center.
participantsA total of 5787 Harvard Medical School (HMS) faculty with a rank of assistant professor or full-time instructor as of January 1, 2008. MAIN MEASURES: Using negative binomial models, multivariable-adjusted predictors of continuous network reach were assessed according to rank. Poisson regression was used to compute relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for the association between network reach (in four categories) and two outcomes: promotion or attrition. Models were adjusted for demographic, professional and productivity metrics. KEY
resultsNetwork reach was positively associated with number of first-, last- and middle-author publications and h-index. Among assistant professors, men and whites had greater network reach than women and underrepresented minorities (p < 0.001). Compared to those in the lowest category of network reach in 2008, instructors in the highest category were three times as likely to have been promoted to assistant professor by 2012 (RR: 3.16, 95 % CI: 2.60, 3.86; p-trend <0.001) after adjustment for covariates. Network reach was positively associated with promotion from assistant to associate professor (RR: 1.82, 95 % CI: 1.32, 2.50; p-trend <0.001). Those in the highest category of network reach in 2008 were 17 % less likely to have left HMS by 2012 (RR: 0.83, 95 % CI 0.70, 0.98) compared to those in the lowest category.
conclusionsThese results demonstrate that coauthor network metrics can provide useful information for understanding faculty advancement and retention in academic medicine. They can and should be investigated at other institutions.
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.