↓ Skip to main content

An Academic Relative Value Unit System for Incentivizing the Academic Productivity of Surgery Faculty Members

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgery, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Academic Relative Value Unit System for Incentivizing the Academic Productivity of Surgery Faculty Members
Published in
Annals of Surgery, September 2018
DOI 10.1097/sla.0000000000002921
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott A LeMaire, Barbara W Trautner, Uma Ramamurthy, Susan Y Green, Qianzi Zhang, William E Fisher, Todd K Rosengart

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate a new academic relative-value unit (aRVU) scoring system linked to faculty compensation and analyze its association with overall departmental academic productivity. Faculty are often not incentivized or financially compensated for educational and research activities crucial to the academic mission. We launched an online, self-reporting aRVU system in 2015 to document and incentivize the academic productivity of our faculty. The system captured 65 specific weighted scores in 5 major categories of research, education, innovation, academic service, and peer review activities. The aRVU scores were rank-aggregated annually, and bonuses were distributed to faculty members in 3 tiers: top 10%, top third, and top half. We compared pre-aRVU (academic year 2015) to post-aRVU (academic year 2017) departmental achievement metrics. Since 2015, annual aRVU bonuses totaling $493,900 were awarded to 59 faculty members (58% of eligible department faculty). Implementing aRVUs was associated with significant increases in several key departmental academic achievement metrics: presentations (579 to 862; P = 0.02; 49% increase), publications (390 to 446; P = 0.02; 14%), total research funding ($4.6 M to $8.4 M; P < 0.001; 83%), NIH funding ($0.6 M to $3.4 M; P < 0.001; 467%), industry-sponsored clinical trials (8 to 23; P = 0.002; 188%), academic society committee positions (226 to 298; P < 0.001; 32%), and editorial leadership positions (50 to 74; P = 0.01; 48%). Implementing an aRVU system was associated with increases in departmental academic productivity. Although other factors undoubtedly contributed to these increases, an aRVU program may represent an important mechanism for tracking and rewarding academic productivity in surgery departments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Lecturer 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 14 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 17 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,620,840
of 24,775,802 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgery
#1,055
of 8,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,815
of 340,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgery
#22
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,775,802 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,749 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.