Scholarly productivity and growth of academic hospital medicine full professors

Background: Scholarship remains the principal currency for faculty promotion in academic medicine. Reference points for scholarly growth and productivity at academic medical centers (AMCs) are lacking. Methods: We identified hospital medicine full professors (HMFPs) at AMCs ranked in research by US News & World Report. Scopus was used to identify each HMFP's publications, citations, and Hirsch-index (H-index). Publications; citations; and first, middle, and senior author papers were measured in 3-year intervals postresidency. Scholarly productivity was analyzed by quintile based on publications, AMC research ranking, years postresidency, and grant funding. Results: Data were extracted for 128 HMFPs from 54 AMCs. HMFPs were a mean of 20.5 (SD: 5.4) years postresidency. The median H-index was 7.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.0–16.0); the median number of publications was 15.0 (IQR: 4.0–51.0). Top quintile HMFPs had a median of 175.5 (IQR: 101.5–248.0) publications, whereas fifth quintile HMFPs had a median of 0.0 (IQR: 0.0–1.0) (p <.001). HMFPs on faculty at the top 20 AMCs had a median of 35.5 (IQR: 11.0–108.0) publications, whereas HMFPs in AMCs ranked 81–122 had a median of 3.0 (IQR: 1.0–9.0) (p <.001). Grant-funded HMFPs had a median of 177.0 (IQR: 71.0–278.0) publications, while nongrant-funded HMFPs had a median of 11.0 (IQR: 3.0–25.0) (p <.001). At 3, 6, and 9 years postresidency, HMFPs had a median of 0.0 (IQR: 0.0–1.0), 1.5 (IQR: 0.0–5.0), and 3.5 (IQR: 0.0–11.0) publications. Fellowship training, additional degrees, and top 25 residency programs correlated with the top half of scholarly productivity. Conclusions: Scholarly productivity among HMFPs varies considerably. At 3, 6, and 9 years postresidency, it is minimal to modest. Grant funding and AMC research rank may establish separate frames of reference for scholarly growth.