Geographic differences in academic promotion practices, fellowship training, and scholarly impact

PurposePrevious literature described how clinical fellowship training impacts scholarly production among academic otolaryngologists, finding that fellowship-trained practitioners had higher research productivity than their non-fellowship-trained peers, and head and neck (H&N) surgeons and otologists had the highest scholarly impact. In this analysis we investigate whether geographic differences in academic promotion and scholarly impact exist, and whether such differences are associated with emphasis on regional fellowship training patterns.MethodsThe Scopus database was used to determine scholarly impact (as measured by the h-index) of 1109 academic otolaryngologists from 97 departments. Online faculty listings were organized by fellowship training, academic rank, and location.ResultsFellowship-trained practitioners had greater research productivity than non-fellowship-trained otolaryngologists (H = 9.5 ± 0.26 SEM vs. 6.5 ± 0.43, p < 0.001), a finding that persisted throughout except in the Mountain and East South Central Regions. H&N surgeons and otologists had the highest h-indices. Practitioners in the West had the highest h-index, with differences persisting upon examination of junior faculty. The West (62.1%) and Midwest (60.5%) had the highest proportions of senior faculty. Regional differences in scholarly impact and academic promotion were further noted upon organizing faculty by subspecialty fellowship training.ConclusionsGeographic differences in academic promotion and scholarly impact exist, most markedly among junior faculty. Practitioners in the West had high impact and were more represented at senior ranks. Upon examination by fellowship training status, fellowship-trained otolaryngologists had higher impact in most, but not all, geographic regions. Regional variations in promotion were noted upon organizing faculty by subspecialty, although association with scholarly impact differs by region.