REVIEWS New Indicesin Scholarship Assessment DennisF. Thompson, PharmD, a ErinC. Callen, PharmD, b and Milap C. Nahata, PharmD, MS c,d a College of Pharmacy, Southwestern Oklahoma State … .. University b College of Pharmacy, Southwestern Oklahoma State c College of Pharmacy, Ohio State University d Department of Pharmacy, Ohio State University Medical Center Submitted October 10,2008; accepted January 30,2009; published October 1,2009. Faculty members’ contributions to research and scholarship are measured by a variety of indices.
Faculty members’contributions to research and scholarship are measured by a variety of indices. Assessment also has become an integral part of the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education’s accreditation process for professional programs. This review describes some of the newer indices available for faculty scholarship assessment. Recently described metrics include theh-index, m-quotient, g-index, h (2) index, a-index, m-index, r-index, ar index, and the creativity index. Of the newer scholarship metrics available, theh-index andm-quotient will likely have the most widespread application in the near future. However, there is no substitute for thoughtful peer review by experienced academicians as the primary method of research and scholarship assessment. Keywords: research, literature, scholarship, assessment, evaluation INTRODUCTION Strategic planning and assessment are essential ele- mentsofacademic pharmacy. Measurement of outcome parameters inastrategicplan can help determine how well goals are being met. The Accreditation Council for Phar- macyEducation (ACPE) has expanded the nature of as- sessmentin academic pharmacy with its 2007 guidelines.1 The ACPEchanges have recently prompted the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy to devote their 11th annual Institute to evaluation, assessment, and outcomes.2 However, it is often difficult to knowhow to measure a particular area or goal and which parameter more accu- ratelymeasures change than others.3,4 For example, schol- arshipcanbe measured by such parameters as the amount and type of grant support for research, number of books, book chapters, or abstracts published, and most classically, the number of journal articles published.5 It is this last parameter of measuring scholarship that has undergone a recent renaissance. Interesting new measures of the depth, breadth, and creativity in journal article publishing have been developed in recent years. The purpose of this paper is to describe these new scholarship metrics. Journal article publishing, as a measure of faculty scholarship, has historically been tracked as simply the number of papers published by a faculty member. Further refinement of this evaluation process has involved differ- entiatingpeer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewedpublica- tions, discriminating between research publications and other types of scholarship (eg, review articles, case reports, letters to the editor), and counting the number of papers on which the faculty member was the first or se- niorauthor. Citation analysis expanded the evaluation of journal article publishing to include the impact or usefulness of a faculty member’sworkbymeasuring the surrogate marker of how many times a paper has been cited by other authors.6 The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) began compiling and publishing citation data and, as a result, the number of times a faculty member’sarticles had been cited in the literature became part of the metrics of scholarship assessment. In the last 5 years, a host of new parameters have been introduced to analyze and quantify a faculty member’simpactand standing in a particular discipline. Table 1 lists these various parameters and describes their calculation, advantages, disadvantages, and their normative values in available disciplines.7-19 While there are too many of these parameters to fully describe all of them here, we highlight several of the newer indices that hold promise as useful scholarship metrics….
Download REVIEWS New Indicesin Scholarship Assessment.pdf