ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2026
Scholarly productivity of non-pharmacy practice faculty in U.S. schools and colleges of pharmacy, 2019-2023.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Scholarly productivity is central to academic advancement, institutional benchmarking, and accreditation in pharmacy education. This study evaluated the national scholarly productivity among non-pharmacy practice (NPP) faculty in U.S. schools and colleges of pharmacy and assessed variation in publication output across faculty and nppinstitutional characteristics. Methods: A retrospective bibliometric analysis was conducted between January 2019 and December 2023. Faculty were identified using the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Roster of Faculty and Professional Staff and classified as biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences (BPS) or social and administrative sciences (SAS). Publications were retrieved from Web of Science and characterized by type and scope. Results: The analysis included 1613 NPP faculty from 142 U.S. schools and colleges of pharmacy. The mean annual publication rate was 3.43 ± 4.35 per faculty member (median 2; IQR 0.8-4.6). Publication productivity was skewed, with 15% of faculty producing 50% of all publications. BPS faculty demonstrated higher productivity (median 2.8; IQR 1.0-7.8) than SAS faculty (median 1.8; IQR 0.6-4.2). Original research articles comprised 67.7% of publications, followed by meeting abstracts/proceedings (16.6%) and narrative reviews (8.9%). Most publications were BPS-focused (72.5%), followed by SAS/health economics and outcomes research/clinical trials (25.5%) and scholarship of teaching and learning (2.1%). Increased publication productivity was noted among senior academic ranks, at public institutions, within health science center-affiliated schools, and at institutions offering graduate programs and receiving higher levels of extramural funding. Conclusion: These findings provide contemporary national benchmarks for NPP scholarly productivity and highlight the influence of faculty and institutional characteristics on publication output.
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.