Academic Productivity and the Annual Report

Recently, a colleague showed me a draft of an annual report of a cardiac surgical program. (The final product is unlikely to be substantially different than this draft.) It outlined the academic activities of the division. It looked quite impressive. However, on closer inspection, many of the publications, abstracts, and submitted publications were of work that was done at other institutions when their junior staff and residents were doing fellowships. Anywhere from 1/3 to ½ of the academic activity was such. My question then becomes, is this an honest assessment or depiction of that division’s academic output?

When a new cardiac surgeon is hired on to an academic division, there are usually research projects in various stages of completion, dangling like participles, from their previous fellowship training. It is reasonable to include these academic activities because they reflect well on those individuals who put in the effort. However, it should be stated clearly that this academic output is derived from efforts at ANOTHER institution.

I believe that this distinction is important because academic output is dependent on the individual AND the conditions at an institution that permit this activity to occur. By not being accurate and clear about where the research was done, this cardiac surgical division is overstating its accomplishments and the report is misleading. This is especially true if the new staff surgeon was not supported financially, or otherwise, during his or her fellowship. At least if the individual was supported during the fellowship, the division could claim some measure of ownership of the research, as it created favourable conditions for the fellow. Unfortunately, support (financial or otherwise) and assurance of employment during fellowship is a circumstance that is all too infrequent.

The situation is similar for residents that are doing their enrichment years at other institutions. Although it can be argued that because the residents are still part of the training program and are being supported, in full or in part, that the academic activity is in some measure part of the Division. Nevertheless, I opine that a clear distinction should be made as to where the research endeavours were made.

For surgeons that take sabbaticals, the same rules should apply.

It is dangerous for a division to be misleading by not being clear. Once the research at other institutions is no longer there, it will appear that the academic output of the division is precipitously declining, leaving the division head having to explain this change to the Hospital or University.

I can only hope that the final annual report from this division, when it comes out, will be more clear about where the academic output of its junior members was undertaken. If this is not the case, some of the responsibility lies in the Hospital or University that do not demand that this distinction be made.