Bibliometric data based on the Pharm.D. and Ph.D. degree in United States research-intensive colleges of pharmacy

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this work was to compare bibliometrics based on doctoral degrees within United States colleges of pharmacy to understand productivity differences. Secondary objectives were to provide quantitative data based on degree that could be utilized by individual faculty, administration and other key stakeholders in academic pharmacy. Methods Bibliometric indices were obtained from Scopus and Web of Science for faculty from research-intensive United States pharmacy schools. Scholarly metrics that included publication number, total citations, highest cited article and H-index were compared between degrees using multivariate regression adjusted for academic rank and years since first publication. A correction for multiple testing was applied. Key findings All collected scholarly metrics were higher for Ph.D.-only and Pharm.D./Ph.D. faculty when compared to Pharm.D.-only faculty. Ph.D.-only faculty significantly differed compared to Pharm.D./Ph.D. faculty for Web of Science average citations per document. Conclusions Differences are apparent between the major doctoral degrees at research-intensive, federally funded colleges of pharmacy; however, these differences were primarily identified for Pharm.D.-only compared to the other doctoral degree types Future work should analyse the potential variables that explain the scholarly metrics differences between degrees and aim to analyse other areas of faculty impact beyond scholarly metrics.

Comparative study of journal article scholarly activity: Pharmacy practice dual‐degree faculty versus single terminal‐degree faculty members

“…6 Previous research using bibliometric publication data comparison of PharmD-PhD versus PharmD in US research-intensive colleges of pharmacy showed higher Scopus and Web of Science scores and average citations per publication, respectively. 13 Our data extends these findings to all DPP-TT dual-degree faculty in the United States and Puerto Rico, showing significant differences in journal impact factor and NIH iCite-Weighted RCR supporting that dual-degree faculty are making a difference in health-related human research.…”

“…Faculty with appointments of adjunct, emeritus, or research positions were excluded. 4 Faculty who had completed a fellowship were not counted as a primary or secondary degree, as they were not deemed to have completed an earned degree. The authors recognize the importance of fellowship training to the profession, 11 but excluded these individuals as fellowships were not consistently listed in faculty listings.…”

“…The presence of a tenure‐track system was confirmed by each institution through verification of online published tenure‐track policy or by direct contact with the Department of Pharmacy Practice. Faculty with appointments of adjunct, emeritus, or research positions were excluded 4 . Faculty who had completed a fellowship were not counted as a primary or secondary degree, as they were not deemed to have completed an earned degree.…”

“…2 Publication bibliometrics are reviewed for tenure and promotions, as they provide insight into the scholarly productivity of faculty. 3,4 The goals of the 2005 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap of the Future of Pharmacy Colleges emphasized the importance of bidirectional information flow in translational research to enhance drug discovery and research. 5 The intent of translational science was, and remains, to develop solutions to challenges across system-wide problems that confound innovation.…”

“…Research dissemination is an important criterion for promotion and tenure within academic institutions 2 . Publication bibliometrics are reviewed for tenure and promotions, as they provide insight into the scholarly productivity of faculty 3,4 …”