ArticleAcademic pathology
Structured Annual Faculty Review Program Accelerates Professional Development and Promotion: Long-Term Experience of the Duke University Medical Center's Pathology Department.
Article in Academic pathology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Importance of Mentorship in Career Development.The American journal of pathology · 2025Review
- Constructing an effective evaluation system to identify doctors' research capabilities.Health care science · 2024Article
- Scholarly productivity of faculty in primary care roles related to tenure versus non-tenure tracks.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- A nationwide assessment of perceptions of research-intense academic careers among predoctoral MD and MD-PhD trainees.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Paying to publish: A cross-sectional analysis of article processing charges and journal characteristics among 87 pathology journals.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective observational study on faculty development analyzes the Duke University Pathology Department's 18-year experience with a structured mentoring program involving 51 junior faculty members. The majority had MD degrees only (55%). The percentage of young women faculty hires before 1998 was 25%, increasing to 72% after 2005. Diversity also broadened from 9% with varied heritages before 1998 to 37% since then. The mentoring process pivoted on an annual review process. The reviews generally helped candidates focus much earlier, identified impediments they individually felt, and provided new avenues to gain a national reputation for academic excellence. National committee membership effectively helped gain national exposure. Thirty-eight percent of the mentees served on College of American Pathologists (CAP) committees, exponential multiples of any other national society. Some used CAP resources to develop major programs, some becoming nationally and internationally recognized for their academic activities. Several faculty gained national recognition as thought leaders for publishing about work initiated to serve administrative needs in the Department. The review process identified the need for more protected time for research, issues with time constraints, and avoiding exploitation when collaborating with other departments. This review identified a rigorous faculty mentoring and review process that included annual career counseling, goal-oriented academic careers, monitored advancement to promotion, higher salaries, and national recognition. All contributed to high faculty satisfaction and low faculty turnover. We conclude that a rigorous annual faculty review program and its natural sequence, promotion, can greatly foster faculty satisfaction.
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.