ArticlePeerJ2015
Prediction of junior faculty success in biomedical research: comparison of metrics and effects of mentoring programs.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating a Tri-Institutional Cancer Research Capacity-Building Program for Early-Stage Investigators.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Gendered male and high-income country authors dominate publication at a One Health research organization.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluating a Research Training Program in Environmental Health and Noncommunicable Diseases in Georgia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) Grants to Build Research Capacity in Underrepresented States.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Impact of the Oklahoma IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence research support and mentoring program for early-stage faculty.Advances in physiology education · 2022Article
- Research Capacity Training on Environmental Health and Noncommunicable Diseases in the Country of Georgia: Challenges and Lessons Learned during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Formative evaluation results of a phase 2 Center of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE).Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Advice for Junior Faculty Regarding Academic Promotion: What Not to Worry About, and What to Worry About.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
- Mentoring the Mentors: Implementation and Evaluation of Four Fogarty-Sponsored Mentoring Training Workshops in Low-and Middle-Income Countries.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2019Article
- Using a Virtual Community (the Health Equity Learning Collaboratory) to Support Early-Stage Investigators Pursuing Grant Funding.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Questioning Assumptions.CBE life sciences education · 2018Article
- Neurodegeneration research: Advances in clinical translational neuroscience infrastructure and methods.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2018Article
- Perception of the importance of chemistry research papers and comparison to citation rates.PloS one · 2018Article
- Five years post-DORA: promoting best practices for research assessment.Molecular biology of the cell · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Measuring and predicting the success of junior faculty is of considerable interest to faculty, academic institutions, funding agencies and faculty development and mentoring programs. Various metrics have been proposed to evaluate and predict research success and impact, such as the h-index, and modifications of this index, but they have not been evaluated and validated side-by-side in a rigorous empirical study. Our study provides a retrospective analysis of how well bibliographic metrics and formulas (numbers of total, first- and co-authored papers in the PubMed database, numbers of papers in high-impact journals) would have predicted the success of biomedical investigators (n = 40) affiliated with the University of Nevada, Reno, prior to, and after completion of significant mentoring and research support (through funded Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, COBREs), or lack thereof (unfunded COBREs), in 2000-2014. The h-index and similar indices had little prognostic value. Publishing as mid- or even first author in only one high-impact journal was poorly correlated with future success. Remarkably, junior investigators with >6 first-author papers within 10 years were significantly (p < 0.0001) more likely (93%) to succeed than those with ≤6 first-author papers (4%), regardless of the journal's impact factor. The benefit of COBRE-support increased the success rate of junior faculty approximately 3-fold, from 15% to 47%. Our work defines a previously neglected set of metrics that predicted the success of junior faculty with high fidelity-thus defining the pool of faculty that will benefit the most from faculty development programs such as COBREs.
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.