ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Reimagining Recruitment and Retention in Academic Plastic Surgery.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recruitment and retention of academic surgeons is challenging. Decreased academic support and high clinical loads cause recruits to leave within 2 years. Here, we explore creative ways to manage top talent in academic practices. Methods: A scoping review of scholarly databases and business literature was performed, and the cumulative experience of the authors was incorporated. Results: New academic recruits feel the gap between their expectations and their actual experience. Despite known advantages of academics over private practice, including resident coverage, salary support, malpractice coverage, and professional advancement opportunities, the dwindling finances in academics have forced departments to use clinical revenues to fund their academic missions. Compensation plans are now more heavily linked to clinical productivity thresholds, often at the cost of academic goals. Additionally, institutions offer limited support for practice-building, and academic promotion criteria have not adapted to the clinical demands. Finally, these pressures have transformed academic practices into becoming fiercely competitive and noncollaborative. To prevent an exodus of new recruits from academic practices, retention strategies need to change. Individual goals must be respected and aligned with the success of all 3 groups: individual, the team, and the organization. Strong practice-building tools need to be developed for new recruits to create a collaborative culture. Fair compensation must include academic metrics, and a new, creative rewards plan that improves faculty experience is vital. Conclusions: Recruitment and retention are critical elements of academic plastic surgery, and redesigning strategies to keep and grow high-value faculty will ensure the growth and advancement of the field.
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.