• Elizabeth A Krupinski and John R Votaw.
• Acad Radiol. 2015 Jul 1; 22 (7): 918-32.

Rationale And ObjectivesTo assess resources available to junior faculty in US academic radiology departments for research mentorship and funding opportunities and to determine if certain resources are more common in successful programs.Materials And MethodsAn anonymous survey covering scientific environment and research mentorship and was sent to vice-chairs of research of radiology departments. Results were evaluated to identify practices of research programs with respect to mentorship, resources, and opportunities. Academy of Radiology Research's 2012 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and awards list was used to determine if environment and practices correlate with funding.ResultsThere was a 51% response rate. A greater fraction of clinical faculty gets promoted from assistant to associate professor than research faculty. Research faculty overall submits more funding applications. Most programs support start-up costs and K-awards. Over half of the departments have a vice-chair for faculty development, and most have formal mentorship programs. Faculty members are expected to teach, engage in service, publish, and apply for and get research funding within 3 years of hire. Top-tier programs as judged by NIH awards have a combination of MDs who devote >50% effort to research and PhD faculty. Key factors holding back both clinical and research junior faculty development were motivation, resources, and time, although programs reported high availability of resources and support at the department level.ConclusionsBetter marketing of resources for junior faculty, effort devoted to mentoring clinical faculty in research, and explicit milestones/expectations for achievement could enhance junior faculty success, promote interest in the clinician–scientist career path for radiologists, and lead to greater research success.

9 keywords...

hide…