N. Valsangkar1, D. Milgrom1, P. J. Martin1, J. Parrett1, M. M. Joshi1, T. A. Zimmers1, L. G. Koniaris1 1Indiana University,Department Of Surgery,Indianapolis, IN, USA
Introduction: To evaluate the relationship between Association for Academic Surgery (AAS) membership and academic productivity for surgical faculty in the United States.
Methods: Academic metrics including numbers of publications, citations, and NIH funding history were determined for 4,015 surgical faculty at the top-55 NIH funded departments of surgery, using SCOPUS, NIH RePORT, and the Grantome online databases. AAS membership was determined from a past and present membership registry.
Results: Overall, 912 (22.7%) of all 4,015 surgical faculty examined were AAS members. Median publications (P) and citations (C) (±SD) were: 54±96 and 985±3321 for AAS members compared with 31±92 and 528±3001 for non-members (p < 0.001). The greater academic productivity of AAS members was observed across all subspecialties and was especially pronounced for assistant and associate professors [Table 1]. AAS membership was also associated with significantly increased rates of NIH funding both for training grants such as those of the K-series and R-awards. Among AAS members, 13.4% had current or former R01/P01/U01grants compared with only 9% of AAS non-members (p < 0.05). AAS members also had two times as many current or previous smaller NIH awards (13.9% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.05) Analysis of AAS membership by subspecialty revealed that AAS members were most commonly general surgery faculty (58%). AAS membership was lowest in cardiothoracic surgery, plastic surgery and among Ph.D. faculty working in departments of surgery; however, AAS members from these subspecialties had significantly greater academic output compared with AAS non-members as well.
Conclusion: AAS membership is associated with substantially better academic metrics and NIH funding rates for junior and midlevel surgical faculty across all subspecialties. Individuals and academic departments interested in improving publications and funding should encourage participation in the AAS. Causes for the low membership rate for certain subspecialties in AAS should be examined and addressed to potentially improve academic metrics within these subspecialties.
