Leadership and Practice Management

Scholarly productivity in U.S. academic musculoskeletal radiology faculty: clinical track versus tenure/research track analysis

Location: Concourse Foyer Kiosk

First Author(s)

NE

Nasim Eshraghi, MD

Postdoctoral Scholar
University of Washington, United States

Co-Author(s)

MR

Mahla Radmard, n/a

Postdoctoral Research Fellow
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States
DY

David Yousem, MD

Radiology
Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, United States
CR

Christine Rehwald, n/a

Radiologist at University of Washington
University of Washington, United States
MC

Majid Chalian, MD

Associate Professor
University of Washington, United States

Purpose: To compare bibliometric productivity between clinical-track and tenure/research-track U.S. academic musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology faculty across academic ranks and to quantify the relative contributions of seniority and track to scholarly output.

Methods/Materials: We performed a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of U.S. academic MSK radiology faculty identified from the ACGME public program directory and an MSK fellowship program list. Academic rank (assistant, associate, or full professor) and career track were assigned from institutional titles. Academic age was defined as 2025 minus the year of first publication. Track comparisons were conducted within rank using nonparametric tests. Variance decomposition estimated explained variability in bibliometric outcomes attributable to academic age, rank, track, and sex.

Results: Among 610 faculty, 259 (42.5%) were clinical and 351 (57.5%) were tenure/research track. Women represented ~30% in both tracks. Clinical-track assistant professors had higher publications, citations, and h-index than tenure/research assistant professors (all p< 0.01). No significant track differences were observed among associate professors (all p>0.05). Tenure/research full professors had higher publication counts than clinical-track full professors (p=0.004), with a borderline higher h-index (p=0.056). Across all ranks combined, rank-adjusted track differences were not statistically significant and were largely unchanged after accounting for academic age. Variance decomposition showed academic age and rank explained nearly all modeled variability (~97–99%), whereas track and sex contributed minimally.

Conclusions: Scholarly productivity differed by career pathway in a rank-dependent manner. Clinical-track assistant professors demonstrated higher early-career bibliometrics, while tenure/research full professors showed greater cumulative publication output. Promotion and scholarship evaluations should consider these variables.